Author Topic: IDF: 10 year old girl is valid target  (Read 65984 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by Clave
Argentina? I never knew that.  Think of all the trouble that would have saved....


Probably wasn't any colonially occupied land they could use.  I think...was part of what became the Soviet Union not also suggested.

On a personal note, I hate this use of 'Muslim land', 'Christian land', etc; it really shows how backward human society is, that we still hold land areas as having to be synonymous with religion.

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
Turn 1. US aerial assault results in one Canadian Leopard C2 destroyed, one damaged, and one TOW jeep is also now a burning wreck. Gowddamn. Canadian tactics rely on small elite units defending chokepoints and focusing fire on enemy's flanks and rear. AA is completely useless.

At the next 3 rounds the US make probing attacks along the main roads at the south, but they are so far easily repelled. A whopping 6 (!) M2A3 Bradleys are destroyed, some by Canadian Leos, some by SF troops with LAWs. Eryxes are also pretty good. Infantry units are also spotted here and there, as is first bigger problem, an Abrams tank. Leo's 107mm guns are no use against the frontal armour of the Yankee beast, so they quickly retreat to woods. Infantry must deal with it while mobile AT vehicles try to outflank it. The Roayl Beaver Defenders must now hope that there are no more than a company or two of M1A2s.

But oh ****. Six more Abramses make an appearance in what is a weaker point in Canadian outskirts! Even though one is immobilised, the future seems grim. AT forces in the rear echelons are already taking positions. Six Abramses vs. 4 SF troops and an Eryx team. omg so unfair. Defences overrun.

At turn 5, the US forces are starting to make their main push. The Abrams onslaught crushes the Canadian outskirt defences in the north, while in the south the SF troops are simply delaying and skirmishing with Yankee aggressors. One M113 is destroyed.

But then the Abramses in the north make a mistake! They decide to use the open ground, possibly in fear of more SF ambushers, and get pinned down on lethal TOW-2/107mm gun fire. Two Abramses are destroyed immediately, one by a lucky 107mm hit into the side skirts, another by a TOW missile piercing the turret side armour. Most shots by Canadian defenders are, however, ricocheting from the unpenetratable frontal armour of M1s. One Abrams is also damaged, but not seriously.

Canadian defenders decide to pull back a little, abadoning their exposed positions and taking up new ones. One of the three Abramses in the north is immobilized by several 107mm hits. It was their choice to take the worst route! After that it's a piece of cake for Leo's to pick on it, and minutes later the M1 is a burning wreck. 4 out 6 enemy tanks in the north are now out of the game - one immobilized, three destroyed. An Eryx team in the north is sent to assault the immobilized Abrams in the woodland, but is forced to retreat due to new tanks arriving. **** you!

At the next turn, US retaliates by bringin down heavy artillery fire in the southern more urban sector, and sending their fighter/bombers against the dug-in Canadian tanks. One Leo is destroyed, and an A-10 attack just demolishes one defence stronghold in the south. Two SF teams and an Eryx team are lost in an eyeblink. However, it does not matter, since US losses are completely devastating; the idiotic Abramses decide to continue their ill-fated attack on the north, losing 4[/b] tanks in rapid succession. Victory, it seems, is now purely a matter of time. A sole surviving Eryx team attack the retreating US tank crews, while US infantry is trying to push through the Wall of Lead in the south. At least one Bradley is destroyed.

Turn 7
Attackers try to take the southern section in what is degenerating into fierce urban battle. Losses are great, at least in modern standards, but US slowly and surely gain foothold along the main highway. Canadian troops further west down the road dig in and wait. A Leo, trying to counterattack and give the troops more time, is destroyed by an Abrams, as is a TOW jeep trying to regroup in the North.
Some stupid elkriders try to show their courage. "Hey guyz get in there ok?" "YESSAH", they shout and gloriously JUMP RIGHT INTO THE OPEN ROAD, getting immediately gunned down by an Abrams standing on guard just 100 meters east of them. Glorious Special Forces my ass.

Turn 8. More aerial assaults. My only AA forces, some Inf-SAMs, are already dead and achieved nothing during the combat. So the US air forces can ravage around freely. One Leo is damaged, but nothing really serious happens. It seems that the USAF forces patrolling the area have already depleted their heavy-duty munitions, so now I only have to fear the Warthogs' 30mm Avengers.

Do not miss the exciting ending! How will the battle end? Can the Canadians stand proud or will Anne Coulter and her Shocktroopers pee on the burnt remnants of Saswahaqhats?
lol wtf

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
Part II: Endgames

Turn 8 ends with normal stuff; US troops hit their head on the wall as they try to annihilate the small Canadian patrols in the southern section. Nothing interestin happens.

Next turn the last US Abramses make their assault, getting destroyed. The immobilized PoS in the north gets overwhelmed by two Canadian Eryx teams assaulting from opposite directions; it's crew abandons the tank and promptly gets shot. I infiltrate a sniper team through in the South, where the single M1A2 is still causing ruckus among the few SF troopers left there.

Next turns are practically nothing of interest. The SF forces outflank and destroy two Mech Infantry squads in the south and begin a shootout contest with the Abrams. Meanwhile in the North an US rifle company has managed to sneak past the guards and is now trying to grab a hold of small village/rural area, but Special Forces are far too stubborn to give them any room. Actually, 3 men outflank the two squads now preparing a new assault and manage to pin the aggressors down in a lonely house. Sniper fire, concentrated C8 punishment and finally a Leopard gun force the enemy to give up and die.

At turn 12 the war is in a gridlock. Neither sides have enough power to make a decisive movement, but I try and move some TOW jeeps closer to the goddamn M1 in the south. It just sits there, with practically no infantry support, but I cannot just assault it right away; I have no manpower to do so. I decide to take a risk and brin two men with one LAW shot closer to the rhino and surprise! The Yanks have abandoned the tank. WTF. Well, ok. I dig in and wait.

US then continues to punish me with artillery fire, but mostly it misses or hits areas of no importance. Some Javelin troopers (!) try to attack my SF in urban areas (!!), and the remnants of abovesaid rifle company still stubbornly attack me, with no results. However, US has a really, really weird trump card left.

A huge Blackhawk swarm just suddenly appears above my skies. What in the hell****? Plus, they're only armed with ordinary machine guns. No miniguns, Hydra rockets, Hellfires, anything. They make pinpoint attacks against my useless TOW positions, but always end up getting shot at and then retreat. I am intrigued. Such a tactic is so unforeseemable that my defeat must be assured! Or maybe not. It seems that the Blackhawks just run here and there, doing nothing.

OH **** THEY AREN'T. They are making goddamn airdrops all over the place, though some of the choppers are empty and only act as decoys. And to add to pandemonium, US somehow manages to summon yet another RifleCo to attack me in the north. Are they trying to deplete me of my ammo? My 10 ordinary troopers and 1 sniper there have already caused a ****load of casualties, but it seems they want more. Ok, you'll get what you ask! I let the Leopards on the loose. Crush everything!

One platoon has landed far too near of my Command Post. Two Leos are unleashed on them, and the US troopers' fate seems rather ill.

Next turn the ****fest continues. The battle has now degraded into "shoot everything at sight" type of slaughter, with immense casualties everywhere.  One of my tanks moves in to support the remaining troops in the Southern Village and solidifies the defence line there. I hope for US's sake that they won't try another Russian-style assault there. A-10 manages to destroy one of my Leopards.

The battle is over. Even though US gained ground here and there, they weren't able to exploit their gains and minor breakthrough and Canadians were always able to regroup. Focused firepower by Leopards thwarted the most significant threat, the armoured company, and stubborn resistance led by SF troops demolished many US assault.

Canadian losses:                                             US losses:
Men  70                                                             189
APCs   0                                                             14
AFVs    7                                                             10

Score: Canada 12352
           USA        2356

The Beavers are safe, for now.

My tactics relied on infantry ambushes. Relying on SF might have been a bad and tad unrealistic choice, as they lacked machine guns. AA was inadequate, as was nonexistant fire support in form of mortars. Minefields could've been used also.
lol wtf

  

Offline Gank

  • 27
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, in a sense, yes. But as far as I know, and I'm sure Sandwich or Gank will correct me if I'm wrong, the leading Zionists had several possible locations up for debate, and in the end Palestine was the one that was chosen due to its historical significance.  


No, there was only one choice of a homeland for the zionists, Palestine. Several other countries like Uganda and Madagascar were proposed but none were really considered seriously by the zionist leaders. As for the British choosing where it was, they didnt, mass immigration to palestine started late 19th century when the place was ruled by the ottomans. You're probably thinking of the Balfour doucument, which was signed before the brits captured the place off the turks and was never fully honoured anyways.

 

Offline Ace

  • Truth of Babel
  • 212
    • http://www.lordofrigel.com
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
Next month :- How to talk to a Black
Spring 2005 :- How to talk to a European


I hope this last part is a joke, because if you're serious... *shudders*

Of course, I'm not going to the GOP website to check. You know voting with your feet and all that... :p
Ace
Self-plagiarism is style.
-Alfred Hitchcock

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Since the americans were the first to recognise Israel they should have just given them Alabama or something. I'd like to see how long they'd have supported them if the jews had started this kind of **** on their own land.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
LOL Yes, don't worry it was a joke Ace, but I wouldn't put it past her, it requires precisely the same mentality as writing a book called 'How to talk to a Liberal'. ;)

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Did the first page say in words of one syllable because anyone buying this book probably doesn't understand longer ones? :D
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Well, I did actually wonder whether it was an opinion or an easy-to-read instruction manual.... ;)

 

Offline Sandwich

  • Got Screen?
  • 213
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Brainzipper
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Since the americans were the first to recognise Israel they should have just given them Alabama or something. I'd like to see how long they'd have supported them if the jews had started this kind of **** on their own land.


Exactly what type of excrement are you referring to, kara?
SERIOUSLY...! | {The Sandvich Bar} - Rhino-FS2 Tutorial | CapShip Turret Upgrade | The Complete FS2 Ship List | System Background Package

"...The quintessential quality of our age is that of dreams coming true. Just think of it. For centuries we have dreamt of flying; recently we made that come true: we have always hankered for speed; now we have speeds greater than we can stand: we wanted to speak to far parts of the Earth; we can: we wanted to explore the sea bottom; we have: and so  on, and so on: and, too, we wanted the power to smash our enemies utterly; we have it. If we had truly wanted peace, we should have had that as well. But true peace has never been one of the genuine dreams - we have got little further than preaching against war in order to appease our consciences. The truly wishful dreams, the many-minded dreams are now irresistible - they become facts." - 'The Outward Urge' by John Wyndham

"The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don't hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others' intolerance - especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide - then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated." - Bren Carlill

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20041211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

American soldier admits to 'Mercy Killing' wounded Iraqi fighter...

"It doesn't help you win the hearts and minds of the public if you put a bullet in their hearts and another in the minds," said Mark Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch.

Once again, saving a merge ;)

Why don't they use the word 'execute?' they wouldn't have any worries about it if were happening the other way round?
« Last Edit: December 10, 2004, 06:47:05 pm by 394 »

 
 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Gank has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

If the jewish people had settled in America and had done any of the things they did in palestine how many Americans do you think would support them now?

Hell your average american hates the French for their crime of not being stupid enough to get dragged into a war that was nothing to do with them and which was based on a pack of lies. How much support do you think their would be if that 7 year old had been american?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Grey Wolf

I'd criticize your use of the stereotype if the people at my high school didn't give me cause to say you're right for the most part...
You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?" -George Bernard Shaw

 

Offline redmenace

  • 211
If I remember correctly, the british turned jews away also. No one wanted them. As for France, many americans don't like them not because of the war, but because of its connection with Saddam Hussein. Most recent example would be the oil for food. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52682-2004Oct21.html

Or the weapons systems French companies sold Iraq without regaurd for UN Sanctions. Or even more recently their dealings with Iran and IEAE such as pushing to give Iran veto power of inspections of the IEAE upon Iran.
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
              -Frederic Bastiat

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
Oil for Food. When significant American, German, French, Russian and British firms, not the governments, use an UN program which is controlled by SC, not Kofi Annan, to make extra money.
lol wtf

 

Offline Rictor

  • Murdered by Brazilian Psychopath
  • 29
Quote
Originally posted by redmenace
If I remember correctly, the british turned jews away also. No one wanted them. As for France, many americans don't like them not because of the war, but because of its connection with Saddam Hussein. Most recent example would be the oil for food. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52682-2004Oct21.html

Or the weapons systems French companies sold Iraq without regaurd for UN Sanctions. Or even more recently their dealings with Iran and IEAE such as pushing to give Iran veto power of inspections of the IEAE upon Iran.


You mean like when the US sold Suharto weapons, despite the sanctions, so he could go on with his genocide in East Timor? Or how the US sold Saddam weapons well after he had commited his worst crimes and it was evident that he was a tyrant? Don't even try to take the moral high ground here.

As for the inspections, the Big 3 (Britain, France and Germany) are trying to actually work out a solution, not trying to start a war like some people I could mention. Its called diplomacy and its really a wonderful thing. No bombs, no dead, but then again, no military bases and puppet government. However, I don't know you're interpreting that as giving Iran veto over inspections, since nothing of the sort is happening.

Before you criticize others for not allowing nuclear inspections, you might want to look at your own country, which is doing the exact thing, only they're being much more non-compliant than Iran/.

 

Offline redmenace

  • 211
Never said the US was perfect and has never made horrible mistakes, did I? Secondly I was only trying to give a perspective about Americans' view of the French.

However,...
The French Gov't strictly controls french defense companies. They cannot even pick their collective noses without asking the french gov't for permission.

What is the purpose of having a lame duck agreement? The French pushed for a provision which basically would allow the Iranians to continue progress toward nuclear weapons un abaded. If that is "democracy" then :wtf: Those that won't heed history are doomed to repeat it. ie apeasment.

Explain you last point.
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
              -Frederic Bastiat

 

Offline Gank

  • 27
Quote
Originally posted by redmenace
Never said the US was perfect and has never made horrible mistakes, did I? Secondly I was only trying to give a perspective about Americans' view of the French.

However,...
The French Gov't strictly controls french defense companies. They cannot even pick their collective noses without asking the french gov't for permission.


Umm, the french didnt sell any weapons to Iraq under sanctions. Poles alleged the found 4 missiles which were made in 2003 which they promptly blew up before anyone else could see them. France stopped making the same missiles in 1993 and poland later retracted the claim and apoligised.

Quote
Originally posted by redmenace
What is the purpose of having a lame duck agreement? The French pushed for a provision which basically would allow the Iranians to continue progress toward nuclear weapons un abaded. If that is "democracy" then :wtf: Those that won't heed history are doomed to repeat it. ie apeasment.


What business is it of the US whether or not Iran has nukes, you're developing them yourselves. As for appeasement, blow it out your other hole, the only country looking to be appeased is the US.

 

Offline Rictor

  • Murdered by Brazilian Psychopath
  • 29
You demand that Iran not have nukes, and yet the US has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.

You also demand that Iran (and North Korea and others) submit to intrusive inspections, and yet George the Lesser has not allowed international inspectors into US facilities. My guess is that it has something to do with the "mini-nukes" being developed, in breach of  treaties signed by the US.

Do I smell just a tiny bit of hypocricy? If others can't tell you what to do, you sure as hell can't tell other how to run their own countries. The US has no right to demand anything of anyone, considering they themselves are not living up to the demands imposed on others.

Once the US disarms, and allows IAEA inspectors in to verify that fact, then you can start making demands.