The Taliban think that only Allah can replace their regime

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
One word: :D

I couldn't help but laugh. I also almost rolled when I saw them putting up ANTI AIRCRAFT GUNS. I think we learned that on December 7, 1941, Antiaicraft guns really can't do much against a 300 plane attack. Of course, back then the planes actually had to...drop bombs! I'd love to see them trying to shoot down a Tomahawk. Or even better, an A10 warthog closing in for the gatling kill :)

 
J

jehh

Banned
Jan 16, 2001
3,576
0
0
Well in that case, just call me Allah... :D

Forget guns, how are they going to deal with LBU-15 laser guided bombs? They just drop down, very quiet making no real noise, hard to see, harder to hit, and they go boom when they hit...

They might as well have pop guns for all the good those will do...

Jason
 
J

Jzero

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
18,834
1
0
Ever see Dr. Strangelove? Why do I have this odd image in my mind of bombs and missiles with "Allah" painted on the side of them....?
 
B

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
It is just an insane thought that we have over 300 carrier-based planes on 4 carriers (Independence, Carl Vincent, TR, Kitty Hawk) and another four or five Nimitz carriers commisioned, elsewhere in the world. We could literally reduplicate the number of planes used for Pearl Harbor 60 years later.

You know, we should do that. We should wait until December 7, 2001 for an assault. Simotaneously we should destroy Taliban bases, opium fields, terrorist camps...and then level Baghdad to a glass parking lot. Move onto bases in Sudan and elsewhere were we know he has been.

It would be the greatest day in American history, on the 60th anniversary of our greatest day of infamy, except for September 11th.
 
D

Dangermouse33

Senior member
Mar 9, 2001
272
0
0


<< Ever see Dr. Strangelove? Why do I have this odd image in my mind of bombs and missiles with "Allah" painted on the side of them....? >>



LOL
 
J

jehh

Banned
Jan 16, 2001
3,576
0
0


<< It is just an insane thought that we have over 300 carrier-based planes on 4 carriers (Independence, Carl Vincent, TR, Kitty Hawk) and another four or five Nimitz carriers commisioned, elsewhere in the world. We could literally reduplicate the number of planes used for Pearl Harbor 60 years later.

You know, we should do that. We should wait until December 7, 2001 for an assault. Simotaneously we should destroy Taliban bases, opium fields, terrorist camps...and then level Baghdad to a glass parking lot. Move onto bases in Sudan and elsewhere were we know he has been.

It would be the greatest day in American history, on the 60th anniversary of our greatest day of infamy, except for September 11th. >>



Sure...

And then we'd have a billion Muslims in the world suddenly hate our guts...

That is really the problem here... any why bombing everything in site doesn't solve the problem...

But I understand the feeling... :)

Jason
 
B

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0


<<

<< It is just an insane thought that we have over 300 carrier-based planes on 4 carriers (Independence, Carl Vincent, TR, Kitty Hawk) and another four or five Nimitz carriers commisioned, elsewhere in the world. We could literally reduplicate the number of planes used for Pearl Harbor 60 years later.

You know, we should do that. We should wait until December 7, 2001 for an assault. Simotaneously we should destroy Taliban bases, opium fields, terrorist camps...and then level Baghdad to a glass parking lot. Move onto bases in Sudan and elsewhere were we know he has been.

It would be the greatest day in American history, on the 60th anniversary of our greatest day of infamy, except for September 11th. >>



Sure...

And then we'd have a billion Muslims in the world suddenly hate our guts...

That is really the problem here... any why bombing everything in site doesn't solve the problem...

But I understand the feeling... :)

Jason >>



I am sure there are enough terrorist targets to destroy out there that are legitimate. We know what countries he operates in. I'm not saying we should roll through the Saudi Arabian deserts looking for them. I'm saying that we know what countries he is operating in, more or less, and we know Saddam is a bastard that should have been knocked off a decade ago.

I'm just for leveling Baghdad because the state-run media has taught them to hate Americans so much that it wouldn't do any good to distinguish targets. We didn't distinguish in Dresden in 1945.
 
J

jehh

Banned
Jan 16, 2001
3,576
0
0


<<
I'm just for leveling Baghdad because the state-run media has taught them to hate Americans so much that it wouldn't do any good to distinguish targets. We didn't distinguish in Dresden in 1945. >>



No, we didn't, but that policy was understood after the war to be bad and pointless...

The 1944 raids on Dresden destroyed almost no war making power, but killed more people than the nuclear weapons used on Japan... Most of them were huddled in bomb shelters in the city...

At the time, we were in a fight for the freedom of the world, and any price paid was acceptible...

Today that isn't true... Nothing the terrorists do, short of using a WMD, will destroy our way of life...

The minute they use a WMD, we WILL use nukes, not before...

Jason
 
B

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Of course I'm not advocating nuclear weapons.

But we need to finally destroy all that Saddam has. He's been a thorn to the Western world and should be finished off at all costs. I think that the only we can make sure that happens is to destroy all industrial and military infrastructure and go in with M1A1s.

There are a few leaders that manipulate the rest of the (poor) muslims in the Middle East. We should destroy the manipulators, not the manipulatees. But sometimes, there is not a choice.

I'm not saying that we should not distinguish at all. But they didn't distinguish, and THEY means terrorists, one of which is Saddam. So if there are a few civilians being used to cover Saddam when he's in one of his mansions, wheras before we would not attack; now we must.
 
E

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< It is just an insane thought that we have over 300 carrier-based planes on 4 carriers (Independence, Carl Vincent, TR, Kitty Hawk) and another four or five Nimitz carriers commisioned, elsewhere in the world >>

The USS Kitty Hawk does not carry any planes and will probably be used for commando (helicopter) operations.
 
J

jehh

Banned
Jan 16, 2001
3,576
0
0
I see you've linked to my audio file in your sig... :)

I was wondering where all that traffic was coming from...

Jason
 
B

bigd480

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,580
0
0


<< Sure... And then we'd have a billion Muslims in the world suddenly hate our guts... That is really the problem here... any why bombing everything in site doesn't solve the problem... But I understand the feeling... :) Jason >>



Muslims already hate our guts.... bombing indiscriminantly only gives them an "excuse" for further terrorism... every Muslim country with nukes would love to drop them on the U.S. if they could do so in even a remotely justifiable way.... As much as I'd like to see us blow a lot of stuff up to make things all better, it's not going to happen - violence begets violence and if we do anything rash then U.S. vs. Terrorists will be the next Israel vs. Palestine - mass carnage with no end in sight, ever....
 
E

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< I thought Kitty Hawk classes were fairly advanced carriers?

Linky

Do you have a source on that? >>

The newspaper I get: NRC Handelsblad.

It's a Dutch newspaper, but I assure that it's one of the most reliable newspapers you can get (also one of the most expensive ones ;) ).
 
Amused

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,355
19,536
146
Gives a whole new meaning to "Kill them all and let god sort them out!"
 
OutHouse

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
I thought Kitty Hawk classes were fairly advanced carriers?

I heard the same thing. No planes on the Hawk but will serve as an additional airfield.
 
B

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Maybe we should have another Doolittle raid scenerio :) Launching B52s from carriers :)
 
D

DDad

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,668
0
0
Elemental
You've got to be kidding

BTW, I don't buy into the scenario that the Kitty Hawk leaving without it's planes is any big deal- in fact, it's standard practice for the Aircrew to fly out a day or two after the Carrier is out at sea. As far as using it as a "offshore base", realistically the best bet for that IMO would be some of the Marine Corp ships- the Tarawa and the Iwo Jima for example.

While I've got a good opinion of Bush, I do think calling him Allah is a bit much........
 
P

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
The Kitty Hawk won't carry its usual fighters and bombers, but will be deployed as a helipad for special force troops.
 
B

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0


<< Elemental
You've got to be kidding

BTW, I don't buy into the scenario that the Kitty Hawk leaving without it's planes is any big deal- in fact, it's standard practice for the Aircrew to fly out a day or two after the Carrier is out at sea. As far as using it as a "offshore base", realistically the best bet for that IMO would be some of the Marine Corp ships- the Tarawa and the Iwo Jima for example.

While I've got a good opinion of Bush, I do think calling him Allah is a bit much........ >>



Of course I'm kidding. It as a joke. Notice the smile.
 
U

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
The Kitty hawk can be used for a surgical ship, as well as a helipad. Think about it. If there is no air wing, then this may mean we are gearing up for a ground war of some sort. This may give us indications of things we do not even want to fathom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom