[d20 Modern] Ideas about a military style campaign

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:41e3db8a.2883453@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:51:22 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> > So is avoiding collateral damage, you sodding moron.
> > Impractical <> Impossible.
>
> Over the large scale, impractical IS impossible. There is no way to
> infallibly ensure that none of your soldiers will make a mistake.

Define "the large scale".

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Ty" <tylawyerSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dOWEd.13104$wi2.8493@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> > Exactly what would you like them to say?
>
> I would expect a non-hypocrite to acknowlege that the blame for civilian
> casualties primarily rests with those unlawful combatants who choose to
hide
> behind women and children.

I find it amusing indeed that Ty still thinks someone is discussing
*blame*.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DB8BC804634taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> Heh. I've been saying it for years. When "innocent civilians" tolerate the
> presence of terrorists among them, they cease being innocent. They can
> clean their own goddamn house, if they don't want us to burn it down with
> them in it. Until they're more afraid of us than they are of the
> terrorists, the terrorists get a free ride.

Plenty of wisdom in this observation.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:10u8l07a86dp558@corp.supernews.com...
> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> Yes. And the idiot seems unable to grasp the basic point that nearly
> *anything* is possible. Therefore, it doesn't really get us very far to
> assert that "thus-and-such is possible" or that "thus-and-such is
> impossible". These are not arguments; they are merely stunningly obvious
> observations.
>
> Of course, that's all Brown has...

Lying about the other poster's arguments just makes you more the fool.

While you're out here shaming yourself, though, you might want to take a
look at something called "active denial".
Contemplate the implications.

If you can.


-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:10u8sg9o44os752@corp.supernews.com...
> The point is simple -- it is highly unlikely that one will be able to
avoid
> collateral damage if one's enemies choose to hide behind civilians.

Unless, of course, you choose not to shoot at those times.

I am constantly amazed at your assumption that the combatant with
superior mobility and firepower does not get to choose the time and place of
its strikes, and that somehow the fact that mohammed jihad is near
schoolchildren Right Now somehow means they have to die and it is mohammaed
jihad's fault. While *we* may be able to *justify* to ourselves such an
action under certain circumstances as mohammed jihad's fault, the fact
remains, we chose whether or not to climb over the bodies of schoolchildren
to accomplish our objectives, and we have the *choice* not to do business
that way at any given time. Follow him and kill him later. Follow him and
kill him with more precise weapons.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DBAC27BD12Etaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > Yes. You. Can. You keep missing the bloody point. THE DECISION
> > TO USE
> > LETHAL FORCE AT ALL IS *YOURS*. The decision about _how_ to use lethal
> > force is also yours. Don't blow up a building you haven't swept for
> > people, for instance. Don't shoot a gun unless it is adjacent to your
> > intended target's spine. There don't have to be stray rounds. It's
> > just *harder* to fight that way. And not deciding to use lethal
> > force at all guarantees that you don't make such misakes.
> >
> It also guarantees that you will lose the war.

That depends rather a lot on the war, sir. Iraq would have progressed
*better* if we had used more of those principles in urban conflict.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DBAC78A4E97taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
> Perhaps such a discussion would be better had when there are no longer
> people trying to destroy our entire culture though violence.

There are no such people. Please upgrade your understanding of the
universe.


-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105497448.743721.279780@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > > Last I checked, shrapnel from artillery shells and grenades can't
> > > descriminate among different targets.
> >
> > ... and therefore, you DON'T USE THESE WEAPONS in mixed crowds if
you
> > want to avoid collateral damage!
>
> And there are times when it is more important to neutralize a target
> than to worry about collateral damage.

Your reply is a non sequitur. Are artillery shells and grenades the
only means of neutralizing targets? You can have your cake and eat it too.
If you *choose* to fight that way.

> If people didn't die in war it would just be a lot of pushing and shoving.

Incorrect.

> It's supposed to be nasty so that people don't want to do it unless
> they absolutely have to.

You just made that up.

> > > You have obviously never heard of the term 'recconaissance by grenade'
> > either.
> >
> > (0) Spelled wrong
> > (1) Non sequitur.
> > (2) *Stupid* assumption
> > (3) Remember my trade, *moron*.
>
> Just as I thought, you've never heard of it.

<shakes head sadly> Did you see (2) and (3)?

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in
news:10ubi1jq477sef6@corp.supernews.com:

> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DCA9AE7E3FFtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
>> "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in
>
>> > I guess I'll have to un-plonk him. There's a great deal of
>> > entertainment potential here.
>
>> Indeed. He's nearly as entertaining as you.
>
> Surely not.
>
You have a sexier wiggle, when you're on the hook. Though you've never sent
me a death threat.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:ChvFd.5904$C52.1402@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "Terry Austin" <taustin@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DBE2DCBB5BAtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
>> Mike's a smart guy. But, unless he's not longer working for the think
> tank,
>> he's never really been in the real world. He's certainly never been in
>> combat. If he expects our troops to commit literal suicide to avoid all
>> collateral damage, maybe a draft isn't such a bad idea after all. If he
>> didn't get fragged by his own troops, he'd come home much wiser than he
>> left.
>
> You would do well to pay attention to the arguments actually made.

If anyone - on either side - actually makes an agrument, I'll keep that in
mind.
>
> The question was raised: *can* one wage war without inflicting
> collateral damage?
> The answer is yes - but it's _hard_.

The answer is "only at the expense of your own lives."

We *could* fight the war by dropping flowers from airplanes, with "Why
can't we all just get along" cards from Hallmark.

But normal people are more interested in discussing something that has some
identifiable connection to real life.
>
> At no point did someone make the suggestion that we are obligated to
> trade American lives away to satisfy such an ideal.
>
So you agree, then, that we are conducting ourselves quite well. That's
progress.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:eivFd.5905$C52.2579@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "Terry Austin" <taustin@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DBE330FEB37taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
>> No doubt. I do read the newspapers, however, and know a person or two
>> how are were in Fallujah a month or two ago, and know full well what
>> the extremists want. They've told us, many, many times, exactly what
>> they
> want:
>> the complete destruction of the west.
>
> Your hyperbole is showing.
>
Your naivete is blowing in the wind.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:mkvFd.5906$C52.3199@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DC598D6A852taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
>> Yes. And they chose to continue to fight in such a way as to guarantee
>> civilian deaths. Since they had proven quite dramatically that *not*
>> fighting them will result in thousands of civilian deaths in the US, not
>> fighting them was no longer an acceptable option.
>
> Wow. Iraqis were going to kill thousands of American civilians?

Saddam Hussien paid terrorists for attacks on US targets. Legally speaking,
that's a declaration of war. We didn't start this fight.

> You're too smart to buy Bush's bullshit, Terry. Do better.
>
Bush is a retard. Far more so than even the worst here. He's stupider than
Jaros was. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Doing the right
thing for the wrong reason is better than doing the wrong thing for any
reason at all.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:OkvFd.5908$C52.534@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DC6F2587571taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
>> Directly, perhaps. Iraq did, however, make cash payments to
>> terrorists for attacking the US, for years. 9/11 was not an isolated
>> incident.
>
> No. For attacking *Israel*.
>
Depending on what source you believe.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:fFwFd.5944$C52.5786@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DBAC78A4E97taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
>> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> Perhaps such a discussion would be better had when there are no longer
>> people trying to destroy our entire culture though violence.
>
> There are no such people. Please upgrade your understanding of the
> universe.
>
Perhaps you should spend a little more time paying attention to the news.
This will require you to either turn up the volume on your TV, or pull your
head out of your ass.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105641645.163188.192950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Your choice to bray a line from a movie, however, indicates that you
are
> > wholly ignorant of the technology I was making an oblique reference to.
>
> I know about as much about current military technology as anyone
> without a security clearance could.

No, you don't, and it shows.

> I know two things that you are obviously ignorant of:
> 1) Technology (expecially new, complex technology) doesn't always work
> as well as expected on the battlefield.
> 2) Technology is still subject to human error.

I applaud your embrace of a non-answer once you've had your pants handed
to you. Goodbye, nice day, be a moron again in public some other time.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DD733EF4DFFtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> So you're suggesting we should allow US troops to be killed instead? Or US
> civilians? Let's do keep in mind, this all started with 3000+ *civilian*
> murders in the US, after all.

It started long before that. However, *Iraq* was not relevant to that
conflict.

> > I see you are one of the disturbing number of "special needs"
> > Americans who think Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
>
> I see you admit I'm right, by resorting to the boring, unimaginative claim
> that anyone who disagrees with you must be retarded, and by lying about
> what I've said.

By associating the conflict in Iraq with 3000 civilian casualties, you
are in fact making that ignorant association, in full color stupidity for
all to see. You read enough news to know better. Stop being a fool in
public.

> 9/11 was not an isolated incident. Terrorism is the problem, not one
> specific incident. Iraq paid terrorists to attack US targets, which is,
> legally speaking, a declaration of war.

Iraq did not pay anyone to attack the world trade center.

> I also notice you don't mention the incontrovertible evidence we found of
> Saddam Hussein's goons torturing children as young as eight to death for
> scribbling the wrong thing in a text book, and murdering girls as young as
> 12 by torture and rape.
>
> I guess you must *approve* of such things, since you defend those who most
> certainly did them.

This is a non sequitur as despicable as Ty's.

> > Have a look for the number of US civilians on US soil murdered by the
> > Iraqi government. This is a trick question - the answer can easily be
> > mistaken for a doughnut.
>
> There's that tired, retarded old lie again, that 9/11 was an isolated
> incident, unrelated to all other terrorism.

That is not what the other poster said.

Al Queda <> Iraq.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:bxAFd.5674$KJ2.5045@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DD733EF4DFFtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
>> So you're suggesting we should allow US troops to be killed instead?
>> Or US civilians? Let's do keep in mind, this all started with 3000+
>> *civilian* murders in the US, after all.
>
> It started long before that. However, *Iraq* was not relevant to
> that
> conflict.

Good dope you're smoking, there, Mikey. Not directly involved in that
*particular* attack, but a very active part of the anti-west terrorism
culture.
>
>> > I see you are one of the disturbing number of "special needs"
>> > Americans who think Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
>>
>> I see you admit I'm right, by resorting to the boring, unimaginative
>> claim that anyone who disagrees with you must be retarded, and by
>> lying about what I've said.
>
> By associating the conflict in Iraq with 3000 civilian casualties,
> you
> are in fact making that ignorant association, in full color stupidity
> for all to see. You read enough news to know better. Stop being a
> fool in public.

You claiming Iraq never, ever supported terrorism? Who's the fool?
>
>> 9/11 was not an isolated incident. Terrorism is the problem, not one
>> specific incident. Iraq paid terrorists to attack US targets, which
>> is, legally speaking, a declaration of war.
>
> Iraq did not pay anyone to attack the world trade center.

Is the WTC the only terrorist target ever attacked? If not, what makes it
fundamentally not part of the terrorist war against the west?
>
>> I also notice you don't mention the incontrovertible evidence we
>> found of Saddam Hussein's goons torturing children as young as eight
>> to death for scribbling the wrong thing in a text book, and murdering
>> girls as young as 12 by torture and rape.
>>
>> I guess you must *approve* of such things, since you defend those who
>> most certainly did them.
>
> This is a non sequitur as despicable as Ty's.

You certainly hope people will believe it is, anyway.

If you heard a neighbor screaming rape and bloody murder, right next door
to you, would you call the cops? Or just figure, "It's none of my
business"? Who will be "the cops" in international politics, if not the US?
The UN is certainly useless in that regard, except as a way to provide
auxiliary troops for a US effort. If we don't do it, the brutal murder of
hundreds of thousands of innocent people will continue. Is that *really*
the sort of world you want to live in? Maybe it is.
>
>> > Have a look for the number of US civilians on US soil murdered by
>> > the Iraqi government. This is a trick question - the answer can
>> > easily be mistaken for a doughnut.
>>
>> There's that tired, retarded old lie again, that 9/11 was an isolated
>> incident, unrelated to all other terrorism.
>
> That is not what the other poster said.

Yes, in fact, it is.
>
> Al Queda <> Iraq.
>
They are part of the same mass movement to destroy the west. And Iraq is
the ideal place to start disassembling the entire movement. Attacking only
Al Queda would, in fact, be counterproductive to the real goal, which is to
stop terrorism in _all_ its forms.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:48:12 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I notice you don't mention the 3000+ "collateral damage" deaths in the twin
> towers. Or is it your claim that every single person killed in that act of
> war was, legally, a combatant under international law?

Got evidence Iraq was involved in that?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
news:fpdcu01mjdue2i27o2qp96ksrqr6nf6lln@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:48:12 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> I notice you don't mention the 3000+ "collateral damage" deaths in
>> the twin towers. Or is it your claim that every single person killed
>> in that act of war was, legally, a combatant under international law?
>
> Got evidence Iraq was involved in that?
>
Got evidence that 9/11 was an isolated incident, not in any way related to
other islamic terrorism at all? Iraq declared war on us, years ago, and was
as much a part of the islamic terror culture as any other country. Invading
Iraq doesn't address 9/11, it addresses the entire terrorist culture.

How many terror attacks have been committed on US soil since then?

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

No 33 Secretary wrote:
> Lying about what I said doesn't change what I said, either, liar-boy.

It does in MSB's corner of Bizarro World.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
news:slrncudss3.poe.bradd+news@szonye.com:

> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> Lying about what I said doesn't change what I said, either, liar-boy.
>
> It does in MSB's corner of Bizarro World.

Not even there. Mikey's not that stupid. Just that dishonest.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DD8C43CF0ECtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > It started long before that. However, *Iraq* was not relevant to
that
> > conflict.
>
> Good dope you're smoking, there, Mikey. Not directly involved in that
> *particular* attack, but a very active part of the anti-west terrorism
> culture.

Anti-west terrorism "culture"? Please. Terry, you're shaming yourself in
public. Hussein was a pan-Arabic wannabe messiah, and he supported, in what
small ways he could without getting nuked, palestinian suicide attacks in
order to maintain <snicker> "credibility". That's only anti "western" in a
semantic sense. The only group linked to Al Queda in Iraq was in the
*Kurdish* region that was not under the regime's control, and they were only
interested in imposing a theocracy over the Kurds, not using the place as a
base to sack America. A *retired* terrorist lived in Baghdad until it
proved inconvenient and he was assassinated. Iraq was not the seat of
"terrorism culture". For that, you need to go to PAKISTAN and AFGHANISTAN,
with a dose of Saudi wahabistwasabi for extra spice. Iraq was a *secular*
power, not an islamic fundamentalist state. They don't play well with
fundies - who also wanted to destroy Hussein!

Now quit shoveling ignorant bullshit in public. It bores me and it
offends me.

> > By associating the conflict in Iraq with 3000 civilian casualties,
you
> > are in fact making that ignorant association, in full color stupidity
> > for all to see. You read enough news to know better. Stop being a
> > fool in public.
>
> You claiming Iraq never, ever supported terrorism? Who's the fool?

Non sequitur. Why bother with such inane dishonesties, Terry?

> >> 9/11 was not an isolated incident. Terrorism is the problem, not one
> >> specific incident. Iraq paid terrorists to attack US targets, which
> >> is, legally speaking, a declaration of war.
> >
> > Iraq did not pay anyone to attack the world trade center.
>
> Is the WTC the only terrorist target ever attacked?

The WTC is the target *you* cite as one that Iraq supported. You are
welcome to identify the terrorist attacks on American soil conducted on
behalf of Iraq. Any time, now.

> If you heard a neighbor screaming rape and bloody murder, right next door
> to you, would you call the cops? Or just figure, "It's none of my
> business"? Who will be "the cops" in international politics, if not the
US?

<falls on the floor laughing>
Ain't no such animal, bubbalove.

> The UN is certainly useless in that regard, except as a way to provide
> auxiliary troops for a US effort. If we don't do it, the brutal murder of
> hundreds of thousands of innocent people will continue. Is that *really*
> the sort of world you want to live in? Maybe it is.

That is the sort of world we *do* live in. Changing it, ironically,
requires the brutal murder of hundreds of thousands of people. Possibly
millions. I'd be ok with that as long as we had a reliable sorting
philosophy.

> > Al Queda <> Iraq.
> >
> They are part of the same mass movement to destroy the west.

Prove it.

> And Iraq is the ideal place to start disassembling the entire movement.

Prove it. Given that the <snicker> "mass movement" *wasn't there*, it is
highly amusing to start such a dismantling in a territory that had no
relevant islamic fundamentalists. On the other hand, there was this place
called Afghanistan, which we had already started to take over, and this
place called Pakistan, where the Taliban (Al Queda's partner in oppression
and demagoguery) originates and remains ...

> Attacking only Al Queda would, in fact, be counterproductive to the real
goal, which is to
> stop terrorism in _all_ its forms.

That is impossible, therefore it cannot be the real goal. Attacking
only Al Queda would be *far* from counterproductive, on account of them
being undeterrable and thus needing to be hunted down and killed thoroughly
and mercilessly.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DD8EC6E7E3Dtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...

> All islamic terrorists come from the same place, ideologically speaking.

No. A great many's motivation starts and ends with Palestine.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news😛SCFd.5781$KJ2.5370@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DD8EC6E7E3Dtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
>
>> All islamic terrorists come from the same place, ideologically speaking.
>
> No. A great many's motivation starts and ends with Palestine.
>
It's all the same place, liar-boy.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:39:02 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
>news:10u8sg9o44os752@corp.supernews.com...
>> The point is simple -- it is highly unlikely that one will be able to
>avoid
>> collateral damage if one's enemies choose to hide behind civilians.
>
> Unless, of course, you choose not to shoot at those times.
>
> I am constantly amazed at your assumption that the combatant with
>superior mobility and firepower does not get to choose the time and place of
>its strikes,

Well, it doesn't if it has inferior knowledge of the movements of the
foes. Which is one critical problem in fighting an insurgency. You
have superior firepower and mobility. But you only know where the
opposition is on an intermittent basis. If you don't take the shot,
then you are liable to lose them. They always know where you are.