It is truly sad to me that this thread is turning into a name-calling mess when the subject is so serious. So what about who is to blame for ISIL? The point is, they are there, barbaric, and present a serious threat to anyone who wants freedom and the right to live in peace with their neighbors. They MUST be stopped! So, let's get down to the question of how to do it. First of all, find ways to cut off their funding. If they're selling oil, cut that off. If they've got money in banks, freeze those funds or sanction countries allowing it - whether they are our "allies" or not. And finally, identify those from countries outside of the region and ensure they are unable to return home. Any American participating in ISIL actions should be flagged, their passports nullified, and put on a Watch List to keep them from re-entering the country. And finally, regardless who they are, support those fighting against these thugs and help them remove them from the surface of this planet - permanently.
Not so much that I think it is okay. I think it is the place of the Iraqis and Syrians to deal with ISIS. No US interests are threatened. You have yet to explain why ISIS must be eliminated. I am interested in your explanation.
Really? Then maybe these ISIS guys are improving the breed. Sure it does in a social Darwinism sense. In preserving an inferior culture we only add to the agony of its people. A legend in your own mind. Get out of your mother's basement into the sun. Take a shower first. Wash the Cheeto dust from your hands and mouth. Are they unwilling to stand up for themselves? Why should we spend money and blood to save those who appear to be willing to live under those conditions? Again, you are a fool. Guys just like ISIS fought the Soviet army to a standstill in Afghanistan when the Soviets were still scaring NATO. If you do, how are you morally better than they? Killing people who pose no threat to oneself was morally wrong last time I looked. AboveAlpha[/QUOTE]
Because it isn't our problem. Good thing you have no team and live in a basement. It's easy for you too! ISIS isn't a tribe. Therefore there is no such thing as 'tribal ISIS headgear'. Ergo, you don't know what happens either. I'll concede you have a vivid imagination. Have you been taking your meds?
In what way does that make them our responsibility? How does this make us responsible for them? If the 99% didn't like the 1%, surely the 1% could be deposed by the 99%. Simple math. Let them do their own dirty work and spend their own money. The question is not if we could, but why we should. Do we really care what happens in the blowhole of the world? Now we've gone from Rods from God to cluster bombs. Still no mention of how to deal with the ISIS type group that will rise after we put ISIS down, though I suspect it's nothing like as easy as you say. Still no mention of why we should destroy ISIS.
Why? By whom? I submit that if they should be stopped, it should be by the people directly affected. That isn't us, by the way. I don't think the people of Iraq or Syria want to live in peace with their neighbors or freedom. Certainly their recent history doesn't suggest it. Sanctions and frozen money didn't work with Iraq, aren't working on Russia and I have doubts these measures will work here. Any military solution will be self defeating unless it is undertaken by the indigenes. Action by the US will backfire, giving rise to a group that exactly resembles ISIS in all but name.
This for sure and without a doubt. Now AGAIN, you Margot2 tell me about any Arab Archeological SITE in Israel!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would have to agree with you there.....but better to end the ISIS NOW....then have a Trilion Dollar War later. AboveAlpha
Tell you what.....since you can't seem to read what I post I will simply ask you.....Why is it you think and INTERGROUP RULE OF HONOR AND CODE....such as when one of my men accidentally salutes me which only happens when I get a new guy.....and the result of this is a CHALLENGE EVENT.....how do you equate that to...as YOu stated...and I quote...."Assaulting a soldier is a felony offense."...end quote? You don't know anything. Perhaps you were at a time some GRUNT and even that I doubt but if you were you would certainly not be privvy to what goes on with my Team of hand picked VOLUNTEERS....and myself and what I decide....WHAT I DECIDE.....is a JOB we will do or not....and I allow a VOTE....if we are asked to continue in an area we finished a JOB.....if my Team wants to continue on. You know NOTHING....absolutely NOTHING about what we are all about!!! So....let's see what You are about? In 3 sentenses explain how to turn a Chinese made Semi-Auto AK-47 sold in the States into FULL AUTO and be able to do it in less than 5 minutes? AboveAlpha
Because they kill for FUN....no real purpose. They can hardly be called Islamic Jihadists more like SOCIOPATHS. I am an expert in Human Behavior and I...well let's say I interogated one a few days back. They are worse than I originally thought. AboveAlpha
You know....there are a lot of former Soldiers who would tell you an AK-47 if fantastic in Jungle Warfare....it is tough....it's heavy rounds penetrate vegetation and if you drop it in mud or water....etc...it will still shoot. But an M-16 Varient in the hands of an expertly trained Soldier will put a HOLE right through the head or heart of another hundreds of yards further away than any expert trained with an AK-47 can. This is why the Soviet Union developed the AK-74. I woud feel COMPLETELY SAFE....walking in the middle of an empty flat desert at a distance of 380 yards of your average Islamic Jihadist with a No-Scope AK-47. In fact I DO feel safe. I would still feel safe at a distace of 250 yards. If he was spraying rounds at me on full auto.....I would feel sake standing 150 feet away if his 1st shot missed because the recoil would NEVER allow him to hit a moving target. Why the HELL do you think we don't use AK's? BECAUSE THEY ARE FOR KIDS!! AboveAlpha
Let me explain this to you.....I post here because I enjoy to and I am allowed to. I could care less whether you or any other member here believes a single word I type. HOWEVER....as many members here will attest to.....I have a habit of predicting things happening.....a 100% Record of doing so....and if I am wrong I would expect someone to inform me and prove I am wrong as I would never want to post something that was not reality. You however...have an agenda. I will allow MOTHMAN....to determine what that agenda is. He is far less a s fun as I am. AboveAlpha
We are doing this....but we need the Political Will. There is a lot of things in the works and remember the ISIS is more like a bunch of untrained armed murderers than any kind of fighting force. The reasons that the Iraqi Military have had such an issue fighting them is they either will not fight against other Sunni's as the Iraqi Government Shia Leader purged all Sunni Military Officers from their Military and Government......and they do not wish to help those they hate..... And the other reason is the Cult of Horror the ISIS has created but when they see us....we see them for what they are. AboveAlpha
Is this some kind of English? You appear to be trying to justify forbidding your men to salute by saying it is somehow required. This is not the case. While you would be permitted to issue a challenge, your opponent need not accept, making your further actions an assault on federal personnel. That, my friend, is a felony. It is obvious I know more about strategy, tactics, game theory, military courtesy and display of the US flag than you. It seems I am quite a bit more knowledgeable than you. To say nothing of English grammar and spelling. Assignments are just that: assigned. You might volunteer for some of them, but if you're an actual operator, you are not permitted to make up where you are assigned. Your AO is assigned to you. Again, putting missions up to a vote is not the way it works. Voting is prejudicial to good military order. Doing it in a combat zone is a court martial offense. I'm sure that you couldn't be court martialed as a civilian, but you would be relieved for cause. That's a career ender. You don't know enough about what you're talking about to come close to the truth. You should stop before you embarrass yoursel some more. So....let's see what You are about? I can do it in one sentence: Buy a full auto version in the first place.
So? The US supports the Israeli regime, they are not engaged in humanitarian efforts on the West Bank. The US supports the Egyptian military junta that overthrew a democratically elected government, then suppressed the winning party, killing hundreds of them if not thousands. The US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, installing the brutal and repressive Shah. Mere bad behavior is not enough. Google 'United Fruit', 'US invasion of Haiti', 'US occupation of Dominican Republic', 'US support for Saddam Hussein' (yes, that Saddam- while he was gassing his own people) and last but not least, 'US support for Efrain Rios Montt' (Guatemalan President presently under indictment for genocide and crimes against humanity). We've supported bad actors. How then can we justify eliminating them on moral grounds? Trained special operator and psychologist, eh? Also rocket scientist and probably rock star as well. Buckaroo Banzai lives! Being bad is not enough. If it were, we would have gone to war with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a long list of other malefactors.
Apparently you have failed to read what I wrote. What I said was that each weapon has its own strong suits. The one chosen should be the one that caters to the needs of your force. From what I've read, almost all US marine infantrymen in Iraq stated in their after action reports that most small arms fire occurred within 20m to 30m. Shots over 100m were rare. The snipers interviewed took most of their shots at under 300m during the day, 200m at night. The actual limitation on long distance combat is visibility, not the capabilities of the weapon. From your prior statements, it is clear that you once again don't know what you're talking about.
I take it personally when people lie to me. I take it even more to heart when they lack the elementary respect for their audience to lie well.
Shouldn't have been supplied in the first place The attacks stopped after Ghouta. Subsequent reports of chemical attacks were found to be questionable as to whether they occured. It's their government and it's up to them as to what they do with their institutions That's not going to work. ISIS is effectively a guerilla army which means that they will disperse rather than withdraw to a defensible position. And it would require them to be completely surrounded on land as well. You mean the orbital kinetic weapon system? It doesn't exist and it would be against international law to arm spacecraft. Again that's providing that the US actually has an EMP weapon which I doubt. Also it's not going to disable their weapons systems because they don't have anything that sophisticated and they would still be capable of manual firing. And of course an EMP isn't going to have any effect on an AK. Not in the way you've described.
M4 carbine[edit]Main article: M4 carbine An M4A1 carbine (foreground) and two M16A2s (background) being fired by U.S. Marines during a live fire exercise: though adopted in the 1990s and derived from the M16A2, the M4 carbine was part of a long line of short-barreled AR-15 used in the U.S. militaryThe M4 carbine was developed from various outgrowths of these designs, including a number of 14.5-inch (368 mm)-barreled A1 style carbines. The XM4 (Colt Model 727) started its trials in the mid-1980s, with a barrel of 14.5 inches (370 mm). Officially adopted as a replacement for the M3 "Grease Gun" (and the Beretta M9 and M16A2 for select troops) in 1994, it was used with great success in the Balkans and in more recent conflicts, including the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters. The M4 carbine has a three-round burst firing mode, while the M4A1 carbine has a fully automatic firing mode. Both have a Picatinny rail on the upper receiver, allowing the carry handle/rear sight assembly to be replaced with other sighting devices. Mk 4 Mod 0[edit]The Mk 4 Mod 0 was a variant of the M16A1 produced for the U.S. Navy SEALs during the Vietnam War and adopted in April 1970. It differed from the basic M16A1 primarily in being optimized for maritime operations and coming equipped with a sound suppressor. Most of the operating parts of the rifle were coated in Kal-Guard, a hole of 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) was drilled through the stock and buffer tube for drainage, and an O-ring was added to the end of the buffer assembly. The weapon could reportedly be carried to the depth of 200 feet (60 m) in water without damage. The initial Mk 2 Mod 0 Blast Suppressor was based on the U.S. Army's Human Engineering Lab's (HEL) M4 noise suppressor. The HEL M4 vented gas directly from the action, requiring a modified bolt carrier. A gas deflector was added to the charging handle to prevent gas from contacting the user. Thus, the HEL M4 suppressor was permanently mounted though it allowed normal semi-automatic and automatic operation. If the HEL M4 suppressor were removed, the weapon would have to be manually loaded after each single shot. On the other hand, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was considered an integral part of the Mk 4 Mod 0 rifle, but it would function normally if the suppressor were removed. The Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor also drained water much more quickly and did not require any modification to the bolt carrier or to the charging handle. In the late 1970s, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was replaced by the Mk 2 blast suppressor made by Knight's Armament Company (KAC). The KAC suppressor can be fully submerged and water will drain out in less than eight seconds. It will operate without degradation even if the rifle is fired at the maximum rate of fire. The U.S. Army replaced the HEL M4 with the much simpler Studies in Operational Negation of Insurgency and Counter-Subversion (SIONICS) MAW-A1 noise and flash suppressor. M16A4[edit] United States Marine Corps M16A4 rifle with Picatinny rail and foregrip.The M16A4 is the fourth generation of the M16 series. It is equipped with a removable carrying handle and a full length quad Picatinny rail for mounting optics and other ancillary devices. The FN M16A4, using safe/semi/burst selective fire, is now the standard issue for all U.S. Marine Corps and is the current issue to Marine Corps' recruits in both MCRD San Diego and MCRD Parris Island.[104] Military issue rifles are also equipped with a Knight's Armament Company M5 RAS hand guard, allowing vertical grips, lasers, tactical lights, and other accessories to be attached, coining the designation M16A4 MWS (or Modular Weapon System) in U.S. Army field manuals.[105] Colt also produces M16A4 models for international purchases, with specifics selective fire: R0901 / NSN 1005-01-383-2872 (Safe/Semi/Auto) R0905 (Safe/Semi/Burst) The Marine Corps is considering a Product Improvement Program (PIP) for their M16A4 MWS rifles. Potential features include a modular and adjustable stock, ambidextrous fire selector, heavier barrel, improved trigger, free-floating rail system, and an adjustable gas block and gas regulator to give all rifles a suppression capability.[106] Today M4 carbines are often issued in place of the M16 rifles, due to their more compact size and fully automatic capabilities. LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle AboveAlpha
In a series of mock-combat situations testing the AR-15, M14 and AK-47, the Army found that the AR-15's small size and light weight allowed it to be brought to bear much more quickly, just as CONARC had suggested. Their final conclusion was that an 8-man team equipped with the AR-15 would have the same firepower as a current 11-man team armed with the M14. U.S. troops were able to carry more than twice as much 5.56×45mm ammunition as 7.62x51mm for the same weight, which would allow them a greater advantage against a typical NVA unit armed with AK-47s. AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - In early 2010, two journalists from the New York Times spent three months with soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan. While there, they questioned around 100 infantrymen about the reliability of their M16 rifles, as well as the M4 Carbine. Surprisingly, troops did not report to be suffering reliability problems with their rifles. While only 100 troops were asked, they fought at least a dozen intense engagements in Helmand Province, where the ground is covered in fine powdered sand (called "moon dust" by troops) that can stick to firearms. Weapons were often dusty, wet, and covered in mud. Intense firefights lasted hours with several magazines being expended. Only one soldier reported a jam when his M16 was covered in mud after climbing out of a canal. The weapon was cleared and resumed firing with the next chambered round. Furthermore, a Marine Chief Warrant Officer reported that with his battalion's 350 M16s and 700 M4s, they've had no issues. AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - ] The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge and can produce massive wounding effects when the bullet impacts at high speed and yaws ("tumbles") in tissue leading to fragmentation and rapid transfer of energy.[75][76][77] This produces wounds that were so devastating that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and many countries[78] considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon.[79][80] The M193 55-grain round was used in early M16 and M16A1 rifles. The bullet tumbled and fragmented when it hit a soft target. With the development of the M16A2, the new M855 62-grain was adopted in 1983. The heavier bullet had more energy, and was made with a steel core to penetrate Soviet body armor. However, this caused less fragmentation on impact and reduced effects against targets without armor, both of which lessened kinetic energy transfer and wounding ability.[16] Some soldiers and Marines coped with this through training, with requirements to shoot vital areas three times to guarantee killing the target.[81] In June 2010, the U.S. Military began issuing the 62-grain M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR). The bullet had a solid copper core to eliminate lead contamination, and a steel penetrator tip. The EPR has better hard target penetration than 7.62 mm NATO ball, while also performing more consistently against soft targets than the M855. While the M855A1 was made to give better performance out of the shorter barrel of the M4 Carbine, it gives enhanced performance from the full-length M16 barrel. AboveAlpha
Really...like the way you have LIED as to telling the membership that AK-47's are better that the M4....an M-16 Varient in URBAN CLOSE QUARTERS FIGHTING??? Daniel Wasserbly, land forces reporter for Jane's Defence Weekly. He points out other differences, such as the shorter barrel in the M4, which makes it somewhat more geared to urban combat and the close-in battles of Iraq than the more open warfare in Afghanistan. "But all the M4s have fairly advanced optics, which really add to their capabilities," he told FoxNews.com. Col. Tamilio, who's PEO group is responsible for developing, fielding and sustaining new weapons, explained that the M4 has evolved substantially over the years, and that new upgrades and even new guns planned for this summer should dramatically enhance our soldiers' capabilities. For one thing, U.S. special forces will be given a new supergun this summer, the XM25 grenade-launcher, which is capable of showering the Taliban with grenades from more than 700 meters away. NOW.....that is an assesssment of the AK-47 vs. the M4 from Daniel Wasserbly, land forces reporter for Jane's Defence Weekly.... as a part of Jane's.....THE WORLD PREMIER DEFENSE AND WEAPON'S PUBLISHER. So...how many members want to take HEDOESNOTHAVEACLUE'S evaluation over Daniel Wasserbly, land forces reporter for Jane's Defence Weekly????? Anyone? I didn't think so. Knock it off!!! AboveAlpha
The only way to get this done is to INSULT THE ISLAMIC HONOR OF ISIS. It is an ancient cultural tribal thing and do it in a way don't think they are going to be targets for Heavy Bombers. A B-2 dropping 80 500 lbs bombs each one filled with the new Anti-Personal Cluster Munition...it immediately goes inert if it does not explode thus is not an issue as part of the International Cluster Ban Treaty....is the way to go. You can be flying at extremely high altitudes....drop 80 of these each one with hundrends of cluster munitions and each one of these 80 bombs are directed to 80 different targets and open up and then the cluster munitions inside direct themselves toward independent human targets. It is a perfect weapon to use and if we can attract the ISIS to say a 500 mile by 500 mile area in groups of 70 to 200 each.....we could eliminate the entire ISIS force overnight. I understand it never goes as planned....but what we....actual what I and my Team are doing now...and we are leaving soon....will take forever. AboveAlpha
