Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elhuero
not for the extremists who think they will be showered with virgins.
the only way to get them is to show them if they do kill themselves in the name of allah they will get 20 Rosie O'Donnell. I bet we could all be friends then.[ROFL1]
Yes I did watch live. The buildings fell about 40 minutes after the impact of the plane. Obviously the impact of the plane is not what brought it down. Scientifically it's impossible for kerosene/jet fuel to melt steel (What the building is made of). Experts insist that there was never any molten steel (since jet fuel cannot ever burn hot enough to melt steel). The towers fell at free fall speed. The "experts" hold to what they call the "pancake effect" as the only possible explanation for the total collapse of the building. It's where the outer trusses become detached from the core frame and stack as they fall. This obviously cannot happen at free fall speed since the falling objects would encounter at least some resistance. This leaves us with a big question as to what brought the buildings down.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
SWEET i'm "conspiracy man" now!
You don't need to melt steel to compromise its strength enough to collapse under tremendous weight.
You do to achieve free-fall speed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
Quote:
This leaves us with a big question as to what brought the buildings down.
Gravity...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
I find it interesting that nobody has disputed the links I posted.
Those that disagree with me can not deny that what I think should be done has a proven track record of working, unlike the koombaya crap that obama is going for.
Where are the revenge strikes from the Philippines, Japan, and Germany? Never happened.
That's what happens when you destroy the enemy's willingness to fight. The Japanese were suicidal as well, look what that got them.
That's because the suicide attack has always been a last ditch effort of a beaten enemy. If it was an effective military tactic, then our bombers in WWII would have sought targets to auger into after their payloads were dropped. It is a highly less effective combat tactic.
However, this less effective tactic becomes successful if your enemy says "Wow, they're suicidal. We can never stop that, might as well throw in the towel"
Which is exactly what anyone who disagrees is advocating.
The jihadis were able to change the course of the elections in Spain a few years ago with a couple of lives and some bombs on trains.
Buy pussing out, you hand them victory on a silver platter.
Plus, the "Elhuero doctrine" has the novelty of never having been tried yet in this conflict.
If it doesn't work we can always grovel for the forgiveness of our islamic overlords later. (well, at least you all can. by that point I'll be long dead, defending my freedom or executed as an infidel)
I find it sickening that our government has already thrown in the towel.
They don't even want to call it a war on terror anymore. Napolitano calls terrorism "man made disasters". They liken terrorism to hurricane or tornado, that cannot be not be stopped, only avoided and survived.
That, my friends, is bullshit. Pardon my french.
Patton is rolling over in his grave.
It doesn't matter to us what a radical's view on death or the afterlife is, if he's already dead.
I'll might not change any minds by stating my case, but I'm glad to see at least a couple of folks agree with me.
in closing, here's another link backing up my reasoning:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/01/07/96634.html
that bitch is going to teach that to her children.
the lesson moms should be teaching their children in that part of the world is "Don't fuck with the U.S."
pardon my french.
I never read your link. I'll look at it when I get home probably. It's not that your idea can never be effective for any enemy, just that I don't think it will be effective for this particular enemy. When you say that Sadam paid families of suicide bombers, I seriously doubt he was "setting them up for life."
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhineoshott
start yer own thread
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v9...68c9eaa99d.gif
This is my thread bub, I'll debate both of you at the same time. Not right now though, I got busy at work and will have to pick this up later.
Did you read your own link? Because it basically talks about the policy of attrition during the Philippine-American war and then goes on to list all the reasons why this policy wouldn't work in Afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elhuero