|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 17, 2017 5:29:46 GMT
I'm not alleging collusion. To the contrary, I am claiming that not one among you Trump apologists has independently supported his decision to allow free passage across the desert for the ISIS terrorists. That includes you. We had troops occupying that desert? No, and we didn't need to engage on the ground. We had drones that were picking off ISIS terrorists - until Trump gave the order to stand down (acting on Putin's request). Even so, the U.S. Army was far too PC in picking off individual ISIS targets, in order to avoid casualties among the their l family members, who were in the convoy. Bush had it right when he ordered the total annihilation of the Iraqi forces from the air, as they fled in a convoy after pillaging Kuwait. Trump allowed the terrorists free passage to a safe area.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Sept 17, 2017 10:23:19 GMT
We had troops occupying that desert? No, and we didn't need to engage on the ground. We had drones that were picking off ISIS terrorists - until Trump gave the order to stand down (acting on Putin's request). Even so, the U.S. Army was far too PC in picking off individual ISIS targets, in order to avoid casualties among the their l family members, who were in the convoy. Bush had it right when he ordered the total annihilation of the Iraqi forces from the air, as they fled in a convoy after pillaging Kuwait. Trump allowed the terrorists free passage to a safe area. Were we occupying the area in question then your analysis would be correct. Saying a terrorist that is not killed by Trump's order means Trump has given some sort of permission to act is crazy talk and I certainly can't argue with crazy talk. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 17, 2017 13:48:17 GMT
The truth hurts.
16 minutes later, they were forced to admit Trump was right.
Idiots at CNN are still calling it a "security incident".
6 terror attacks in 6 months, and they still go after people who say "mean" things about Muslims harder than they go after potential terrorists.
Link? Trump might not be the village idiot, but he acts like he is. His thoughtless continuing bashing of friends and allies is counter-productive. His underlings, one again, were tasked with cleaning up after Donald, explaining that he didn't mean what he said. What about Brannon's comment? He obviously has been reading FHF!! Lol What about Trump deferring to Putin by allowing a convoy of ISIS terrorists to travel unimpeded across the desert to safety? Are you on board with that? Even the UK media:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4891880/Police-admit-Bucket-Bomber-run.html?mrn_rm=rta-fallback
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 18, 2017 0:22:44 GMT
No, and we didn't need to engage on the ground. We had drones that were picking off ISIS terrorists - until Trump gave the order to stand down (acting on Putin's request). Even so, the U.S. Army was far too PC in picking off individual ISIS targets, in order to avoid casualties among the their l family members, who were in the convoy. Bush had it right when he ordered the total annihilation of the Iraqi forces from the air, as they fled in a convoy after pillaging Kuwait. Trump allowed the terrorists free passage to a safe area. Were we occupying the area in question then your analysis would be correct. Saying a terrorist that is not killed by Trump's order means Trump has given some sort of permission to act is crazy talk and I certainly can't argue with crazy talk. Good luck with that. Good grief. Well, I do have to grudgingly give you credit for trying to defend the indefensible. What does it matter whether or not U.S. troops were occupying the area? Haven't you ever heard of aerial and satellite surveillance? We knew for days and days that ISIS terrorists were fleeing in a convoy across a wide expanse of open desert. In fact, Army drones had been picking off individual ISIS terrorists - until Trump issued his stand down order, as requested by Putin. I wasn't at all in agreement with the Army's decision to target individual terrorists, rather than destroying the entire convoy, family members and all, in a single strike. But, at least they were trying to do something. Do you recall when Obama also allowed ISIS terrorists to cross a wide expanse of desert, in even larger convoys? He had an opportunity to destroy ISIS. Now, Donald Trump has repeated the same incredibly stupid mistake. Is Trump really that much under Putin's thumb.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Sept 18, 2017 11:27:13 GMT
Were we occupying the area in question then your analysis would be correct. Saying a terrorist that is not killed by Trump's order means Trump has given some sort of permission to act is crazy talk and I certainly can't argue with crazy talk. Good luck with that. Good grief. Well, I do have to grudgingly give you credit for trying to defend the indefensible. What does it matter whether or not U.S. troops were occupying the area? Haven't you ever heard of aerial and satellite surveillance? We knew for days and days that ISIS terrorists were fleeing in a convoy across a wide expanse of open desert. In fact, Army drones had been picking off individual ISIS terrorists - until Trump issued his stand down order, as requested by Putin. I wasn't at all in agreement with the Army's decision to target individual terrorists, rather than destroying the entire convoy, family members and all, in a single strike. But, at least they were trying to do something. Do you recall when Obama also allowed ISIS terrorists to cross a wide expanse of desert, in even larger convoys? He had an opportunity to destroy ISIS. Now, Donald Trump has repeated the same incredibly stupid mistake. Is Trump really that much under Putin's thumb. I didn't try to defend anything. I tried to gently point out the USA is not in control of every country on Earth. I made another point as well but I'm sure it is gone too.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 18, 2017 12:55:56 GMT
Good grief. Well, I do have to grudgingly give you credit for trying to defend the indefensible. What does it matter whether or not U.S. troops were occupying the area? Haven't you ever heard of aerial and satellite surveillance? We knew for days and days that ISIS terrorists were fleeing in a convoy across a wide expanse of open desert. In fact, Army drones had been picking off individual ISIS terrorists - until Trump issued his stand down order, as requested by Putin. I wasn't at all in agreement with the Army's decision to target individual terrorists, rather than destroying the entire convoy, family members and all, in a single strike. But, at least they were trying to do something. Do you recall when Obama also allowed ISIS terrorists to cross a wide expanse of desert, in even larger convoys? He had an opportunity to destroy ISIS. Now, Donald Trump has repeated the same incredibly stupid mistake. Is Trump really that much under Putin's thumb. I didn't try to defend anything. I tried to gently point out the USA is not in control of every country on Earth. I made another point as well but I'm sure it is gone too. So, are you ok with Trump bowing to Putin's request to cease the drone attacks on ISIS terrorists as they were sitting ducks crossing open desert, exactly as Obama had done?
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 18, 2017 14:15:49 GMT
The request was part of what the military calls “deconfliction,” a process to make sure the Russian-backed Syrian forces and the American-backed Syrian Democratic Forces do not inadvertently attack one another while both are trying to battle ISIS.
Cooperation with the Russians was important since Russian-backed forces and American-supported forces were separately closing in on the Euphrates River city of Deir al-Zour, with both sides launching numerous air raids in the area.
Moreover, the convoy was pinned down near the town of Sukhna, well within the Russian side of the deconfliction line, in the area reserved for Russian warplanes to operate under a longstanding American-Russian agreement.
“The way the deconfliction has worked, there are certain areas where the Russians have a sway over what happens, and this is one of them,” said Mr. Joscelyn said.
www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-isis-convoy-us.html
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 18, 2017 15:31:17 GMT
Took you long enough to cite the New York Times' excuse! I thought that you considered the NYT to be fake news? Are you really, really comfortable defending Trump on his guaranteeing safe passage for the ISIS terrorists?
Of course it is "deconfliction" if the U.S. acceeds to the Russians' request to allow the ISIS terrorists to travel freely. But, deconfliction is the worst possible way to go when ISIS terrorists are sitting ducks! That is the time to bomb them into oblivion. The job should have been done the right way, before the Russians had a chance to beg for mercy for the terrorists.
First Obama, and now Trump allowed ISIS free passage.
Now, Tillerson says that the U.S. might stay in the Paris climate change accord. Perhaps Pelosi and Schumer can provide Trump with some guidance.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 18, 2017 20:23:50 GMT
Are you ready for tax reform - Trump style?
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Sept 18, 2017 20:45:34 GMT
I didn't try to defend anything. I tried to gently point out the USA is not in control of every country on Earth. I made another point as well but I'm sure it is gone too. So, are you ok with Trump bowing to Putin's request to cease the drone attacks on ISIS terrorists as they were sitting ducks crossing open desert, exactly as Obama had done? Were we occupying that part of the desert?
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 18, 2017 21:13:55 GMT
So, are you ok with Trump bowing to Putin's request to cease the drone attacks on ISIS terrorists as they were sitting ducks crossing open desert, exactly as Obama had done? Were we occupying that part of the desert? Not that I know of. I can't imagine why we want to stage ground forces in a desolate desert, especially when the convoy is easy to track with aerial and satellite surveillance. Moreover, I can't begin to fathom why that would be a factor, one way or another, in the decision whether to attack the ISIS terrorists or to allow them safe passage. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Are you suggesting that we should put ground troops at risk when the convoy could be easily destroyed in very short order using air power, with no risk?
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Sept 18, 2017 21:43:29 GMT
Were we occupying that part of the desert? Not that I know of. I can't imagine why we want to stage ground forces in a desolate desert, especially when the convoy is easy to track with aerial and satellite surveillance. Moreover, I can't begin to fathom why that would be a factor, one way or another, in the decision whether to attack the ISIS terrorists or to allow them safe passage. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Are you suggesting that we should put ground troops at risk when the convoy could be easily destroyed in very short order using air power, with no risk? I have never made that suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 19, 2017 1:41:40 GMT
Fair enough. Then, what is your point?
Do you support Trump's decision to call off the drone attacks on the ISIS convoy and allow the terrorists to slowly make their way through open desert to safety?
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 19, 2017 10:52:55 GMT
Were we occupying that part of the desert? Not that I know of. I can't imagine why we want to stage ground forces in a desolate desert, especially when the convoy is easy to track with aerial and satellite surveillance. Moreover, I can't begin to fathom why that would be a factor, one way or another, in the decision whether to attack the ISIS terrorists or to allow them safe passage. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Are you suggesting that we should put ground troops at risk when the convoy could be easily destroyed in very short order using air power, with no risk? I think perhaps one factor, in addition to this process being longstanding strategy, was the fact that ISIS, as usual, had embedded themselves with women and children in the convoy.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 19, 2017 11:56:16 GMT
Not that I know of. I can't imagine why we want to stage ground forces in a desolate desert, especially when the convoy is easy to track with aerial and satellite surveillance. Moreover, I can't begin to fathom why that would be a factor, one way or another, in the decision whether to attack the ISIS terrorists or to allow them safe passage. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Are you suggesting that we should put ground troops at risk when the convoy could be easily destroyed in very short order using air power, with no risk? I think perhaps one factor, in addition to this process being longstanding strategy, was the fact that ISIS, as usual, had embedded themselves with women and children in the convoy.
Family members. I have no sympathy. Nevertheless, the Army waited until an individual ISIS terrorist was at a distance away from civilians before targeting him with a drone. Trump stopped even that bit of politically correct rules of engagement. Was Reagan deterred when he ordered the attack on Qaddafi's compound because family members were present? I would respect Trump's decision, if he had Reagan's resolve and fortitude, to risk the certain criticism that would go along with targeting and destroying the entire convoy. But, Trump will never come close to being the next Reagan.
|
|