Page 1 of 3
Mali
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:44 pm
by SDHornet
French are entering their very own Afghanistan now. Anyone reading up on this?
http://news.yahoo.com/mali-french-troop ... 53355.html
BAMAKO, Mali (AP) — French soldiers pressed north in Mali territory occupied by radical Islamists on Wednesday, launching a land assault that was to put them in direct combat with al-Qaida-linked fighters "in one to 72 hours," military officials said.
How is mass carpet bombing not the first option?
Re: Mali
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:02 pm
by kalm
SDHornet wrote:French are entering their very own Afghanistan now. Anyone reading up on this?
http://news.yahoo.com/mali-french-troop ... 53355.html
BAMAKO, Mali (AP) — French soldiers pressed north in Mali territory occupied by radical Islamists on Wednesday, launching a land assault that was to put them in direct combat with al-Qaida-linked fighters "in one to 72 hours," military officials said.
How is mass carpet bombing not the first option?
Because they're holed up in a city filled with civilians. I know the brown skinned folks are all the same to you but zeeesh!
Reports are these are some of the unknown black africans WE armed in Libya that originally came from points south now returning home to take up arms with Al Quaeda.
Oh well, at least the French are involved.
Oh Cluck! Obushma reminder needed...
Re: Mali
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:07 pm
by AZGrizFan
Over/under until the French surrender?
Re: Mali
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:48 pm
by YoUDeeMan
kalm wrote:
Reports are these are some of the unknown black africans WE armed in Libya that originally came from points south now returning home to take up arms with Al Quaeda.
Oh well, at least the French are involved.
Oh Cluck! Obushma reminder needed...
This just in...Obushma is thinking that we need to do background checks and limit the size of magazines before we distribute arms to nomadic tribesmen that we call our allies.
Re: Mali
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:53 pm
by YoUDeeMan
http://news.msn.com/world/hostages-take ... -spreads-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Americans and others taken hostage in response to French attacks.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: "I want to assure the American people that the United States will take all necessary and proper steps that are required to deal with this situation."
He said he lacked firm information on whether there were links to the situation in Mali. Analysts pointed to shifting alliances and rivalries among Islamists in the region to suggest the hostage-takers may have a range of motives.
Genius.
Before this administration leaves office, they will make Bush look like Ghandi.
Re: Mali
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:19 pm
by SDHornet
kalm wrote:
Because they're holed up in a city filled with civilians. I know the brown skinned folks are all the same to you but zeeesh!
Reports are these are some of the unknown black africans WE armed in Libya that originally came from points south now returning home to take up arms with Al Quaeda.
Oh well, at least the French are involved.
Oh Cluck! Obushma reminder needed...
It's my understanding that the Islamists carved out camps in the middle of the fucking desert and that is where they are launching their fighters from. Now again, why not carpet bomb the shit out of a fucking sand fortress carved into the side of a fucking hill in the middle of a nowhere?
Re: Mali
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:24 pm
by YoUDeeMan
SDHornet wrote:It's my understanding that the Islamists carved out camps in the middle of the fucking desert and that is where they are launching their fighters from. Now again, why not carpet bomb the shit out of a fucking sand fortress carved into the side of a fucking hill in the middle of a nowhere?
The French bombed the rebels for six days before launching their ground assault.
Maybe they bombed them with cheese.
Re: Mali
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:25 pm
by SDHornet
Cluck U wrote:SDHornet wrote:It's my understanding that the Islamists carved out camps in the middle of the fucking desert and that is where they are launching their fighters from. Now again, why not carpet bomb the shit out of a fucking sand fortress carved into the side of a fucking hill in the middle of a nowhere?
The French bombed the rebels for six days before launching their ground assault.
Maybe they bombed them with cheese.
We'll see. For the Frenchies sakes, I hope it works.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:06 am
by CAA Flagship
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:59 am
by Grizalltheway
Wachoo laughin bout, Giuseppe?
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:24 am
by YoUDeeMan
Apparently, Panetta and Obama did all they could to rescue our American's.
"Screw the hostages...gas prices are high. Bomb the fvckers and let's get this gas rolling again!"
"An Algerian airstrike reportedly killed 34 hostages and 15 of their Islamist militant captors, the ANI news agency says. Seven are still alive, including two Americans.
NOUAKCHOTT — Seven foreign hostages are still alive, including two Americans, after an Algerian military raid on a siege at a gas plant Thursday where Islamist militants were holding them, Mauritania's ANI news agency reported, citing one of the al-Qaida-linked kidnappers.
ANI said a spokesman for the kidnappers told the agency those hostages were three Belgians, two Americans, a Japanese and a Briton. No details were given for the Algerians who were also captured."
http://news.msn.com/world/report-7-host ... rian-seige" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:26 am
by Ibanez
AZGrizFan wrote:Over/under until the French surrender?
I'm suprised it hasn't already occured.
I give it a week before our assistance is called for.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:27 am
by Ibanez
Cluck U wrote:SDHornet wrote:It's my understanding that the Islamists carved out camps in the middle of the fucking desert and that is where they are launching their fighters from. Now again, why not carpet bomb the shit out of a fucking sand fortress carved into the side of a fucking hill in the middle of a nowhere?
The French bombed the rebels for six days before launching their ground assault.
Maybe they bombed them with cheese.
Probably. Usually, bombing softens up the foe but not if stinky cheese and Jerry Lewis DVDs are used.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:28 am
by Ivytalk
We didn't get involved in Rwanda in '94, where the butchery was truly horrifying. Not a chance that we'll get involved in Mali. Let the brie-eaters handle it.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:30 am
by andy7171
Gotta give props to the Algerians. They don't fuck around apparently. I wouldn't look for many more terrorist activities in Algeria. That said, I wouldn't want to work there.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:43 am
by Ibanez
Ivytalk wrote:We didn't get involved in Rwanda in '94, where the butchery was truly horrifying. Not a chance that we'll get involved in Mali. Let the brie-eaters handle it.
Um...was that before or after we were involved with the Rwanda turmoil in 1994?
President Clinton defended his Administration's role in Rwanda on Saturday, dismissing criticism that the slow response of the United States and other Western nations had worsened the human catastrophe now unfolding in refugee camps along the Zaire-Rwanda border....Clinton said the Administration has been involved in the crisis since May and that the United States has provided 40% of the supplies used in the relief effort.
The President's statements came as the Pentagon scrambled to gear up the U.S. military force of at least 4,000 troops who will be deployed to the region to bolster relief efforts and help bring order out of the chaos brought on by the wave of refugees.
In Rwanda, the White House says, U.S. forces will operate independently, will handle only humanitarian tasks and will not join a broader U.N. peacekeeping effort.
In addition, the troops will not enter Rwanda itself, the scene of bloody massacres that have left hundreds of thousands dead and millions more fleeing into the hastily established, open-air refugee camps.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-24/ ... ief-effort" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:55 am
by Ivytalk
Ibanez wrote:Ivytalk wrote:We didn't get involved in Rwanda in '94, where the butchery was truly horrifying. Not a chance that we'll get involved in Mali. Let the brie-eaters handle it.
Um...was that before or after we were involved with the Rwanda turmoil in 1994?
President Clinton defended his Administration's role in Rwanda on Saturday, dismissing criticism that the slow response of the United States and other Western nations had worsened the human catastrophe now unfolding in refugee camps along the Zaire-Rwanda border....Clinton said the Administration has been involved in the crisis since May and that the United States has provided 40% of the supplies used in the relief effort.
The President's statements came as the Pentagon scrambled to gear up the U.S. military force of at least 4,000 troops who will be deployed to the region to bolster relief efforts and help bring order out of the chaos brought on by the wave of refugees.
In Rwanda, the White House says, U.S. forces will operate independently, will handle only humanitarian tasks and will not join a broader U.N. peacekeeping effort.
In addition, the troops will not enter Rwanda itself, the scene of bloody massacres that have left hundreds of thousands dead and millions more fleeing into the hastily established, open-air refugee camps.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-24/ ... ief-effort" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Um, the last quoted excerpt makes my point, bow-tie boy.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:15 am
by 89Hen
French soldiers pressed...
I'm calling bullshit already.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:16 am
by kalm
Rwanda didn't have oil or Al Quaeda either.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:19 am
by Ivytalk
kalm wrote:Rwanda didn't have oil or Al Quaeda either.
Nope. Just a lot of black people killing each other. The Clinton Administration never did get involved militarily. Plus the usual hapless performance by the UN.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:24 am
by AZGrizFan
89Hen wrote:French soldiers pressed...
I'm calling bullshit already.
Exactly. Unless that sentence is completed with the words "grapes into wine."
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:25 am
by kalm
AZGrizFan wrote:89Hen wrote:
I'm calling bullshit already.
Exactly. Unless that sentence is completed with the words "grapes into wine."
Or coffee.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:20 pm
by Ibanez
Ivytalk wrote:
Um, the last quoted excerpt makes my point, bow-tie boy.
Read again. You stated we weren't involved. Clinton, in excerpt 1, clearly states we were involved.
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:16 pm
by CAA Flagship
AZGrizFan wrote:89Hen wrote:
I'm calling bullshit already.
Exactly. Unless that sentence is completed with the words "grapes into wine."
Pants
Re: Mali
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:21 pm
by Screamin_Eagle174
BAMAKO, Mali (AP) — French soldiers pressed north in Mali territory occupied by radical Islamists on Wednesday, launching a land assault that was to put them in direct combat with al-Qaida-linked fighters "in one to 72 hours," military officials said.