StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://assaultweb.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/230132.html

It might be effective against private targets, but not against any real target like the govt officials.

Most of those training probably have never gotten to leave Afg. They probably died fighting there.

LOL! Apparently the terrorists were AK training with the firing port facing upwards...You mean they were firing Kalashnikovs gangsta style? ROFL! I hope I read that wrong, otherwise my tax money is being wasted fighting these incompetents when we could just send a bunch of Quake players who would do it for free.

Actually that seems liek a farily good training regime considering the recruits they had and the general quality of many terrorist and militia groups. Most of the tactics would be highly effective and the assessment that any attack must be stalled within the opening stages is quite correct. Fanatics willing to die for their cause are damn hard to beat in a hostage situation.

Look, you kill everyone in a hostage crisis, the next time, no one is going to surrender. This is stupid. Its like the 9/11 hijackers. Next time someone tries to Hijack a plane the passengers are going to rise up and tear the terrorists limb from limb, because they will die if they do nothing.

These guys are ametuers who think they are the shit becasue they are so wanting to die. The NY Mafia could beat the living shit out of these dopes.

Azeron wrote:These guys are ametuers who think they are the shit becasue they are so wanting to die. The NY Mafia could beat the living shit out of these dopes.

United States military analysts think otherwise.

Are you trying to say you know better?

Gunner wrote:

Azeron wrote:These guys are ametuers who think they are the shit becasue they are so wanting to die. The NY Mafia could beat the living shit out of these dopes.

United States military analysts think otherwise.

Are you trying to say you know better?

Analyists are wrong plenty of times, look at Vietnam, total fuck up courtest Rober MacNamara, Military Analyists, and Westmoreland. And the Washington Analyists said Hitler couldn't make a new Counterattack in December 1944, they were dead wrong, little thing called Battle of the Bulge where Patton dually kicked some arse.

Yeah, but I've seen the parts of the tapes myself. Their training might be good enough to stand up to some police forces, but against most professional soldiers they are dead meat. They consistently make rookie mistakes. I even saw one of them get his thumb caught by the hammer in one of their pictures, and I just love how often they fire on fully automatic from the hip.

Captain Lennox wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Azeron wrote:These guys are ametuers who think they are the shit becasue they are so wanting to die. The NY Mafia could beat the living shit out of these dopes.

United States military analysts think otherwise.

Are you trying to say you know better?

Analyists are wrong plenty of times, look at Vietnam, total fuck up courtest Rober MacNamara, Military Analyists, and Westmoreland. And the Washington Analyists said Hitler couldn't make a new Counterattack in December 1944, they were dead wrong, little thing called Battle of the Bulge where Patton dually kicked some arse.

Fact is Watch on Rhine couldn't possibly succeed unless the Germans captured huge amounts of allied fuel. However they proved unable to capture any dumps. Allied intelligence thought they wouldn't attack under such condition, and it proved to be a quite stupid move for them.

The location wasn't so great for the Allies, but it did ensure that when the counter attack came, the lead elements of the attack were already out of fuel and they were to strung out to conduct an effective defense. If the Germans had done nothing beyond eliminating the American bridge head though the West Wall, and then moved to counter the Russians or just sat tight, they would have been much harder to beat in the spring of 1945.

Intel generally assumes the enemy wont do insanely stupid and/or risky things. The result is when they do do them, they some times succed when they really shouldn't have. But quite often they fail miserably, like the Bulge.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Captain Lennox wrote:

Gunner wrote: United States military analysts think otherwise.

Are you trying to say you know better?

Analyists are wrong plenty of times, look at Vietnam, total fuck up courtest Rober MacNamara, Military Analyists, and Westmoreland. And the Washington Analyists said Hitler couldn't make a new Counterattack in December 1944, they were dead wrong, little thing called Battle of the Bulge where Patton dually kicked some arse.

Fact is Watch on Rhine couldn't possibly succeed unless the Germans captured huge amounts of allied fuel. However they proved unable to capture any dumps. Allied intelligence thought they wouldn't attack under such condition, and it proved to be a quite stupid move for them.

The location wasn't so great for the Allies, but it did ensure that when the counter attack came, the lead elements of the attack were already out of fuel and they were to strung out to conduct an effective defense. If the Germans had done nothing beyond eliminating the American bridge head though the West Wall, and then moved to counter the Russians or just sat tight, they would have been much harder to beat in the spring of 1945.

Intel generally assumes the enemy wont do insanely stupid and/or risky things. The result is when they do do them, they some times succed when they really shouldn't have. But quite often they fail miserably, like the Bulge.

Yeah, Hitler was a nutcase, but no one thought he was that stupid...the German Generals put up a goo try in a losing war.