Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
1.2%? What are you supposed to spend as a NATO member?

Minimum 2%

That's meant to be your membership fee to maintain ernough armed forces to be at least capable of acting with other members.
US and UK where pushing for 2.5% to strengthen alliance

Yes, that won't happen.

A 2% goal without specifying what that money is spent on is hilariously useless though. If Norway, for instance, spent 2% of GDP on a battleship made out of solid gold they'd reach the 2% spending goal, but...

Speaking of ISIL, you can call them ISIL, AL Qaeda, Taliban whatever, but it won't change while this still occurs:
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/04/14/pakistani-student-killed-mob-campus

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39593302

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
1.2%? What are you supposed to spend as a NATO member?

Minimum 2%

And to be honest,what is equally if not more important than % is what they buy with that %.

NATO, as an organization, relies on US ISR, transport and refueling way too much. Countries would rather have a handful of sexy fighter planes or tanks, which are over represented (excess capability) in the organization rather than buy capabilities which actually enhance the war fighting and power projection of the organization.

Up above you have someone complaining the Netherlands can only afford a small number of F35s. So? What if instead they helped fill capability gaps whatever tiny percent of GDP they felt was worth the expenditure could at least be useful...

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
1.2%? What are you supposed to spend as a NATO member?

Minimum 2%

And to be honest,what is equally if not more important than % is what they buy with that %.

NATO, as an organization, relies on US ISR, transport and refueling way too much. Countries would rather have a handful of sexy fighter planes or tanks, which are over represented (excess capability) in the organization rather than buy capabilities which actually enhance the war fighting and power projection of the organization.

Up above you have someone complaining the Netherlands can only afford a small number of F35s. So? What if instead they helped fill capability gaps whatever tiny percent of GDP they felt was worth the expenditure could at least be useful...

I wasn't exactly complaining, I was pointing out how expensive it could get if you have to negotiate for a few dozen planes instead of thousands like the US, why we can't buy equipment like this EU wide yet is also a mystery to me.

You miss the problem to a certain extent though, yeah fighters and tanks (which we sold and now have to lease from Germany ) are sexy, but also easier to justify. Closing capability gaps such as transport and refueling is seen as useless, because our army is so small they never go somewhere alone, which is why we are comfortable leaning on US capabilities. Meanwhile these few dozen planes still fly around Dutch airspace intercepting airliners or Russian aircraft. It would be nice if we could up the budget by 1-2% to have the capability to move our own ass, but then the next question is move it where. This is why buying a few sexy aircraft is more logical to European governments, as almost all their armies are too small to be used alone anyway, which makes investing in transport capability more unfeasible. So why invest in something if you can just hitch a ride with the US to their conflict zone?

I agree with that argument when it comes to say, the Middle East, or Africa.

However, for example, does the Netherlands now have sufficient transport capacity and infrastructure to, say, as a completely random example... Move their forces to.... Poland?

Even the US isn't buying 'thousands' of F35s.

 Compel wrote:
I agree with that argument when it comes to say, the Middle East, or Africa.

However, for example, does the Netherlands now have sufficient transport capacity and infrastructure to, say, as a completely random example... Move their forces to.... Poland?

Well we can still do that, mainly because the military was geared for moving into Germany during the Cold War. Its close enough to be doable with the equipment we have
Now moving outside of Europe/overseas is where the transport issues pop up, as in Europe we can still depend on good infrastructure like roads and railways, while being within reasonable distance to the Netherlands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Even the US isn't buying 'thousands' of F35s.

Isn't the US buying close to 2000? Next to all the other aircraft they would also posses. Regardless, its easier to pressure for a purchase order from a foreign company if you can buy hundreds instead of a dozen (we have options like the Eurofighter or the Saab, if Lockheed doesn't want to play ball).

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".

Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).

Yup, it is all a matter of budget. And as budgets can be changed, that makes it all a matter of being willing or not willing to do so. Virtually nobody in the Netherlands wants to make the cuts in other parts that would be needed to fund a more capable military. And that is why the Dutch military sucks, and that is why so many Dutch think the Netherlands is small and insignificant, which then becomes an excuse for further decreasing the military budget. It is circular logic used to disguise the fact that the Dutch want others (mainly the US and the Germans) to pay for defense and the pursuit of collective Western interests. And that is a problem.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time).

Once, the Dutch kicked British ass all over the seven seas though. Once, the Dutch even destroyed the British fleet in the Thames, and the Dutch stadtholder invaded and became king of England. Once...
It was only in the 18th century that the British became more powerful than the Dutch. But yeah, those times are long past. Still, with 30 F-35s the Netherlands already could contribute a lot more than with 12 (altough they really should have bought the cheaper planes).

 CptJake wrote:


I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...

I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...

Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs.
Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.

Also, Syria released this yesterday:

Army Command: Hundreds, including many civilians, killed in int’l coalition’s airstrike on ISIS toxic materials depot



Damascus, SANA- The General Command of the Army and Armed Forces said on Thursday that hundreds were killed, including a large number of civilians, due to an air strike carried out by aircrafts of the so-called US-led international coalition against a huge depot for ISIS terrorist organization that includes toxic materials in the village of Hatla in the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor province.

In a statement on Thursday, the General Command said aircrafts of the international coalition carried out between 17:30 and 17:50 pm on Wednesday an air strike against a position of ISIS terrorists that includes a large number of foreign mercenaries in the village of Hatla to the east of Deir Ezzor, causing a white cloud that soon turned into yellow as a result of the explosion of a huge depot that includes a large amount of toxic materials.

The General Command said that a fire erupted as a result of the strike that lasted until 22:30 pm, while hundreds of people were killed, including a large number of civilians, due to suffocation caused by the inhalation of toxic materials.

The Army’s Command noted that this incident confirms the truth of the coordination between the terrorist organizations and the countries supporting them to find pretexts and to accuse the Syrian Arab Army of using chemical weapons, adding that this incident also confirms that the terrorist organizations, mainly ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, possess chemical weapons and have the ability to obtain, transfer, store and use those weapons with the help of well-known countries in the region.

“This is what Syria has warned of every time terrorist groups used chemical weapons against the civilians and Syrian Arab Armed Forces,” the statement added.

The command reiterated its assertion that it neither possess any types of chemical weapons, nor has it used any, warning of the dangers of continued use of chemical weapons by the terrorist groups against civilians, particularly after the messages these groups have recently received which provide cover to their actions and allow them to escape punishment.

Shaza/H. Said

http://sana.sy/en/?p=104229

 aldo wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...

I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...

Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs.
Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.

You and the blogs you follow would be wrong. I know a guy very much involved in this mission from a targeteering/weaponeering perspective. He personally chose the munition several months ago when approached about this specific target. The MOAB was chosen because it was THE most efficient and effective way to attack this target. And you know what? It did exactly what it was supposed to do.

A 'bunker buster' would not have worked as well, and you would have need dozens precisely dropped with a very specific detonation pattern to come close to what this did, and there were more variables making 'bunker busters' less than desirable.

 CptJake wrote:

 aldo wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...

I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...

Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs.
Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.

You and the blogs you follow would be wrong. I know a guy very much involved in this mission from a targeteering/weaponeering perspective. He personally chose the munition several months ago when approached about this specific target. The MOAB was chosen because it was THE most efficient and effective way to attack this target. And you know what? It did exactly what it was supposed to do.

A 'bunker buster' would not have worked as well, and you would have need dozens precisely dropped with a very specific detonation pattern to come close to what this did, and there were more variables making 'bunker busters' less than desirable.

Interesting.

It killed 36 guys, acording to Afghan sources

Also, apparently this is the place, with a 150m circle over it.

Number of 'guys killed' isn't even a metric for how effective it was. The people were not the target, the facility/tunnel complex was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And frankly, you can't really count evaporated red mist and figure out a body count, nor has anyone had a chance to go deep and dig through collapsed areas.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".

Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).

Yup, it is all a matter of budget. And as budgets can be changed, that makes it all a matter of being willing or not willing to do so. Virtually nobody in the Netherlands wants to make the cuts in other parts that would be needed to fund a more capable military. And that is why the Dutch military sucks, and that is why so many Dutch think the Netherlands is small and insignificant, which then becomes an excuse for further decreasing the military budget. It is circular logic used to disguise the fact that the Dutch want others (mainly the US and the Germans) to pay for defense and the pursuit of collective Western interests. And that is a problem.

Budget certainly can and should be changed. But even a 2-3% budget will not make us able to really operate independently. European states are welfare states which means that we just can't put as much into the military as the US (also the US has unique economic advantages for running deficits for military budget). I wouldn't say virtually nobody wants to make cuts, I think the youth is just not involved enough with politics as a whole to notice what should happen and any cuts would affect baby boomers which are the largest voting group are just a no go. Even if most of the younger people would vote, we still wouldn't dent the vast size of the baby boomer vote due to demographic imbalance.

Government however operates under the assumption that the Netherlands is the 'smallest of the large countries'. Most parties would support a higher budget if only their voters would, because most parties went along to Afghanistan and Iraq without a lot of protest. The we are small card is not why budgets have gone down. The real reason is that we can say the Cold War is over, so we can cut budgets, but this was secretly done so cuts on other sectors (the ones the majority of their electorate benefits from) could be postponed. Look at the retirement age, it should have been lowered years ago, but proposing it back then would have been suicidal. This shortsightedness by the voters and the tyranny of the majority has completely messed up the future for our generation in not just the military, but also the education and social welfare sectors. Yet successive governments still have not gone far enough to prevent this destructive trend from continuing. Its not really about people thinking were too small, its about people thinking 'would we rather have tanks or should I be able to go on that extra vacation to Aruba when I'm old'. People are selfish, they just try to make up BS arguments.

Having said that, the Netherlands is still too small to field a significant army on the scale of Germany, France or the UK and we should be ok with that idea (we can't even get enough young personnel now). We don't need a gigantic army, we just need a decent and well equipped one that can be easily achieved with a 2-3% budget and that can more easily cooperate with a German or US force without becoming completely dependable on them. Cooperating is good, but ensure that you as an ally are worth more than just a number of bodies the US can't provide itself, bring some sort of useful capability beyond just a bunch of bodies and five aircraft. Although our navy is still halfway decent for our size.

TL: DR Even if we invest more, we will never have more than a small army relatively speaking.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time).

Once, the Dutch kicked British ass all over the seven seas though. Once, the Dutch even destroyed the British fleet in the Thames, and the Dutch stadtholder invaded and became king of England. Once...
It was only in the 18th century that the British became more powerful than the Dutch. But yeah, those times are long past. Still, with 30 F-35s the Netherlands already could contribute a lot more than with 12 (altough they really should have bought the cheaper planes).

Hey man I admire your love for Dutch history, but even in the height of our Golden Age we did not fight the British all over the seven seas, mainly because neither countries were really that involved yet beyond the Atlantic. The Anglo-Dutch trade wars were winnable in the beginning because of our semi superpower status. But in the end it was only a tactical victory as Dutch victories couldn't be followed up by invasions (this is due to the extreme emphasis on naval supremacy and small army) meaning the British were free to keep tightening the screws on us, which is why we lost the superpower status to them. The glorious revolution is also a very misleading event because yes, we fielded a large army and navy, but British parliament also invited us over to put the guy on their throne. There was no way of knowing what would happen if conflict broke out.

The switch between Dutch to Anglo-French supremacy was already occurring in the 17th century due to our small size compared to France's population and Britain's secure position due to the channel. We certainly punched above our weight for a bit longer but by the second half of the 17th century we were already in decline. Again, I'm not disputing more budget would be better, but the welfare state model combined with our size means that even a 2-3% budget won't let us operate independently of our allies, but we don't have to be able to do everything independently outside of Europe, our allies are our greatest strength and we should always work together overseas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aldo wrote:
Also, Syria released this yesterday

What are you trying to say by linking this?

 aldo wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 aldo wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...

I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...

Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs.
Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.

You and the blogs you follow would be wrong. I know a guy very much involved in this mission from a targeteering/weaponeering perspective. He personally chose the munition several months ago when approached about this specific target. The MOAB was chosen because it was THE most efficient and effective way to attack this target. And you know what? It did exactly what it was supposed to do.

A 'bunker buster' would not have worked as well, and you would have need dozens precisely dropped with a very specific detonation pattern to come close to what this did, and there were more variables making 'bunker busters' less than desirable.

Interesting.

It killed 36 guys, acording to Afghan sources

Also, apparently this is the place, with a 150m circle over it.

I wonder if this was also a message to BEST Korea?

 Frazzled wrote:

 aldo wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 aldo wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...

I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...

Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs.
Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.

You and the blogs you follow would be wrong. I know a guy very much involved in this mission from a targeteering/weaponeering perspective. He personally chose the munition several months ago when approached about this specific target. The MOAB was chosen because it was THE most efficient and effective way to attack this target. And you know what? It did exactly what it was supposed to do.

A 'bunker buster' would not have worked as well, and you would have need dozens precisely dropped with a very specific detonation pattern to come close to what this did, and there were more variables making 'bunker busters' less than desirable.

Interesting.

It killed 36 guys, acording to Afghan sources

Also, apparently this is the place, with a 150m circle over it.

I wonder if this was also a message to BEST Korea?

The odds of survival of that are rather low. Thats one huge area around it.. Gone.
Yes, maybe scarily that this is a well fortified. Semi underground facility. Now who does that match?

Raqqa or North Korea kinda match those two scenarios.
Both heavily into defensive warfare, bunkers and tunneling.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What are you trying to say by linking this?

Why should I be trying to say something? It's news. It's about ISIS and the fight against them. Someone may care about it.

 aldo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What are you trying to say by linking this?

Why should I be trying to say something? It's news. It's about ISIS and the fight against them. Someone may care about it.

It was a ISIS base.
Was, it got rather destroyed rather effectively. Though 13 million for 38 guys, a few mud huts and some soviet weapons.

 aldo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What are you trying to say by linking this?

Why should I be trying to say something? It's news. It's about ISIS and the fight against them. Someone may care about it.

I'm just confused because you linked it without saying something, which I would have expected since this is Syrian state media and their spin on the truth, less news and more propaganda. No confirmation this actually happened beyond the Syrian government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 aldo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What are you trying to say by linking this?

Why should I be trying to say something? It's news. It's about ISIS and the fight against them. Someone may care about it.

It was a ISIS base.
Was, it got rather destroyed rather effectively. Though 13 million for 38 guys, a few mud huts and some soviet weapons.

I think you're confused with the US bomb in Afghanistan. My question was directed at Aldo linking to Sana, the Syrian state's news agency.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 aldo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What are you trying to say by linking this?

Why should I be trying to say something? It's news. It's about ISIS and the fight against them. Someone may care about it.

I'm just confused because you linked it without saying something, which I would have expected since this is Syrian state media and their spin on the truth, less news and more propaganda. No confirmation this actually happened beyond the Syrian government.

I just saw that Operation Inherent Resolve is claiming it to be Intentional Misinformation from the Syrians.
https://twitter.com/OIRSpox/status/852500671467270144

.@OIRSpox has seen the reports from SANA alleging @CJTFOIR strikes near Deir Ezzor Weds--not true! Intentional misinformation...again!

I'm not saying any of them is saying the truth. I'm not saying any is lying. I'm just posting interesting news.

Sure, I am pro-Russian/Syrian on this matter, but I wasn't coinciously trying to misinform, sorry if that's the impression you got, I'm just posting news that haven't been posted already.

 aldo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 aldo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What are you trying to say by linking this?

Why should I be trying to say something? It's news. It's about ISIS and the fight against them. Someone may care about it.

I'm just confused because you linked it without saying something, which I would have expected since this is Syrian state media and their spin on the truth, less news and more propaganda. No confirmation this actually happened beyond the Syrian government.

I just saw that Operation Inherent Resolve is claiming it to be Intentional Misinformation from the Syrians.
https://twitter.com/OIRSpox/status/852500671467270144

.@OIRSpox has seen the reports from SANA alleging @CJTFOIR strikes near Deir Ezzor Weds--not true! Intentional misinformation...again!

I'm not saying any of them is saying the truth. I'm not saying any is lying. I'm just posting interesting news.

Sure, I am pro-Russian/Syrian on this matter, but I wasn't coinciously trying to misinform, sorry if that's the impression you got, I'm just posting news that haven't been posted already.

So far this airstrike seems not to have happened as there is little to no reporting about it outside of the Syrian government. I think most of us are aware what Sana is and I didn't think you were trying to misinform. I was just asking what you were trying to say by posting this from their state media, now you said it was interesting to post, which was the part I was curious about

Agh no problem.

I thought it was the MOAB related bit.

Which I've posted before but it saw this and it makes some sense.
There's two other places that match this, heavily dug into rock and tunnels. Raqqa and North Korea.

This could of been a trial for a big push on there capital or scarily a test run just incase related to kims ultra fortified country.

Speaking of ISIL inspired.

Three dead...in Fresno.
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article145234709.html

That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.

 CptJake wrote:
That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.

When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.

When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.

That's pretty solid evidence.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.

When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.

That's pretty solid evidence.

There is plenty of evidence (videos, social media posts and so on) from the guy showing he is a big time racist/anti-white militant as well. His brand of Islam is the type adopted/adapted by black militants and spread through the prison system.

 CptJake wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.

When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.

That's pretty solid evidence.

There is plenty of evidence (videos, social media posts and so on) from the guy showing he is a big time racist/anti-white militant as well. His brand of Islam is the type adopted/adapted by black militants and spread through the prison system.

AS noted, I take him at his word. He's a terrorist, just like the Atlanta church guy is a terrorist.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.

When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.

That's pretty solid evidence.

There is plenty of evidence (videos, social media posts and so on) from the guy showing he is a big time racist/anti-white militant as well. His brand of Islam is the type adopted/adapted by black militants and spread through the prison system.

AS noted, I take him at his word. He's a terrorist, just like the Atlanta church guy is a terrorist.

The only difference is "Islamic" "black power/white power" or any above preceeding word.
Still tried to achive aims by violence and fear.