On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> > > Yikes, Richard! You've really given this a lot of thought. Even down to > the detail about sending ISIS leaders to work in ebola clinics. I'd say > those patients are already suffering enough! > > *Not to attend the sick, but to cremate the dead bodies.Someone has to do it.* > > Do you have an alternative plan? > > *The alternative plan is the final solution: nuke Mecca, with a threat to do the same to Medina. But I really think my plan is better - it's hard to field an army with no fuel or food when your life depends on a Toyota for a runner to get to a market.* > > > > On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:31 AM, "Richard Williams > pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com > [FairfieldLife] <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > > John, I'm not sure that jihadists driven to such horrific acts will cave > in due to their own vileness. And certainly not in response to the world's > censure. They LIVE FOR that censure. imo. > > > > My plan would be to send in a thousand drones to wipe out their > infrastructure. First, disable all the tanks, jeeps, and Toyotas and then > hit their oil and fuel processing facilities and pipelines. Then, enforce a > no-drive zone on any highway or road in the entire ISIS-controlled areas. > > Without fuel, money coming in and no vehicles, it probably wouldn't take > six months before the rag heads all come out with their hands in the air > waving a white flag looking for a ride to a meal. > > Then, we would arrest all the leaders and hold them at Gitmo until they > get a NSA chip implanted in their forehead so we could track them anywhere > they go. Then, we would put the ISIS leaders to work in an ebola clinic for > the rest of their lives. > > If there were any objections and for some reason this plan failed, we > would then consider emptybll's final solution. > > > > > > On Monday, September 15, 2014 11:29 AM, "jr_...@yahoo.com > [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > > > Jedi, > > That's too extreme. Non-combatants will be killed along with the hard > core criminals. I don't believe the world would accept that solution. > > The ISIS militants are already feeling the world opinion against their > ideology. They will eventually cave-in due to their own vileness. > > Once the Iraqi forces take back their towns and lands, ISIS will be > surrounded in their homeground in Syria by forces that are against them. > It's possible that Assad's forces could wipe them out first. > > If not, Obama could start bombing their weapons and equipment to further > degrade ISIS. But this could also create international furor for attacking > a sovereign land in Syria. Assad would complain, but he would be secretly > rejoicing in that the Americans are attacking his own enemy. > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jedi_spock@...> wrote : > > > > You want my advice? A single neutron bomb would be enough to > wipe them out. The infrastructure will remain intact. > > These people are savage bandits. There is no other way out > of this. > > > --- <jr_esq@...> wrote : > > Actually it would be easier for the Iraqi forces to retake the towns that > the ISIS militants have occupied after the US bombs the ISIS equipment, > weapons and stronghold. > > However, it's another scenario in Syria itself. At this time, I would > assume Assad's forces are more likely to finish the job after the US bombs > the ISIS stronghold, equipment and weapons. If they don't, the so-called > friendly militants would take control and Assad's power will more likely be > degraded. > > The soldiers that are flying the drones can see fairly well through the > cameras from as far as 5 to 6 miles away. They can pick out enemy > combatants. > > > > > > > > > >
