Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Wikileaks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="av8torntn" data-source="post: 790341" data-attributes="member: 8259"><p>Well first of all I was responding to honestly the ignorant question you posed of how or why would someone use something like a 155mm arty round(conventional or otherwise) as an IED against a point target. I would assume that even the least knowledgeable person knows that indirect is considered an area fired weapon. For some odd reason you did not question or mock why would someone "waste" a 155mm round on an IED. My guess and it is just a guess that you do not get that but in that regard they are pretty effective. The reason that nobody really takes anyone from the extreme left seriously is because of what you just tried to do by claiming that I said that multiple conventional rounds together would equal WMD's. I never said nor implied anything even remotely similar. That will not slow you down though. There are multiple things that would have to be done correctly to use an IED effectively and you can add multiple more things to the list if you used a chemical round to make your IED. I never claimed that anyone had a cache of chemical weapons and they would use them against specific targets. I honestly never felt like anyone knew exactly what they had or where all the weapons were coming from. It was not uncommon to get flagged down by a civilian who was farming and uncovered buried weapons. There was a fear of getting caught with them by coalition forces. I'm sure your next question is why did we not use technology to find all this. We are the superpower after all.<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="av8torntn, post: 790341, member: 8259"] Well first of all I was responding to honestly the ignorant question you posed of how or why would someone use something like a 155mm arty round(conventional or otherwise) as an IED against a point target. I would assume that even the least knowledgeable person knows that indirect is considered an area fired weapon. For some odd reason you did not question or mock why would someone "waste" a 155mm round on an IED. My guess and it is just a guess that you do not get that but in that regard they are pretty effective. The reason that nobody really takes anyone from the extreme left seriously is because of what you just tried to do by claiming that I said that multiple conventional rounds together would equal WMD's. I never said nor implied anything even remotely similar. That will not slow you down though. There are multiple things that would have to be done correctly to use an IED effectively and you can add multiple more things to the list if you used a chemical round to make your IED. I never claimed that anyone had a cache of chemical weapons and they would use them against specific targets. I honestly never felt like anyone knew exactly what they had or where all the weapons were coming from. It was not uncommon to get flagged down by a civilian who was farming and uncovered buried weapons. There was a fear of getting caught with them by coalition forces. I'm sure your next question is why did we not use technology to find all this. We are the superpower after all.:wink2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Wikileaks
Top