Surgical strike in Afgahnistan causes bloodbath

[a_unique_person]

I the term "Surgical Strike" just an oxymoron? Using a ground attack aircraft to strike at one person who may or may not have been home, and in the process killing a group of children is pretty poor form.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3298945.stm



US child bombing account challenged


The US sent in an A-10 "Warthog" after receiving intelligence
Local villagers in Afghanistan have contradicted US reports that the target of an air strike that killed nine children also died in the raid.
The attack was carried out on Saturday in the village of Hutala, in a remote area of southern Ghazni province.

US officials said they were acting on extensive intelligence and had killed a former Taleban militant, Mullah Wazir.

But local Afghans told the BBC's Crispin Thorold the intended target had left the village 10 days earlier.


President Hamid Karzai has expressed his shock at the incident.


He said his government had sent a team of investigators to the scene and had also sent officials to ensure the victims' families were being helped.

The Afghan president said US forces should ensure that future operations were better co-ordinated with the Afghan Government to ensure such incidents would not happen again.

The United Nations has also condemned the incident as "profoundly distressing " and called for a swift inquiry.

US 'sorry'

Patches of dried blood and a pitiful pile of children's hats and shoes are the only evidence that remains of a bombing raid that went dreadfully wrong, our correspondent says.

[corplinx]

Is this any worse than any other friendly friendly fire incident?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Is this any worse than any other friendly friendly fire incident?
Yes. Mostly because of the high civilian-to-combatant kill ratio. Also it was a bunch of kids. Also, if the bit about the intended target being known to have left is true, it could have been avoided. Also, it is incredibly harmful to the US in terms of international support in a place where they badly need it.

This was about as bad as it gets.

Of course, if the Bush had focussed on controlling the Taliban in Afghanistan before losing interest and finding somewhere else to invade, things might have been different.

On the other hand, the US is already so widely despised in the region that this probably won't change the overall position of anybody, but only solidify them in their position.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes. Mostly because of the high civilian-to-combatant kill ratio. Also it was a bunch of kids. Also, if the bit about the intended target being known to have left is true, it could have been avoided. Also, it is incredibly harmful to the US in terms of international support in a place where they badly need it.

This was about as bad as it gets.

Of course, if the Bush had focussed on controlling the Taliban in Afghanistan before losing interest and finding somewhere else to invade, things might have been different.

On the other hand, the US is already so widely despised in the region that this probably won't change the overall position of anybody, but only solidify them in their position.

Tell me, Tricky, how is that US lost interest in Afghanistan? Also, I was under impression that we built a coalition to go to Afghanistan, isn't that working in there?

[Mr Manifesto]

Aw, they got the guy they were after. We're doing DNA tests now. And if that turns up negative... You'll lost interest because:

It's time for: OPERATION AVALANCHE!

This shows we care for them towelheaded suckers. We're starting up a whole bunch of operations in the South, Sou-Eastern and Eastern part of Afghanistan to show them how much we care. By killing more of them.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes. Mostly because of the high civilian-to-combatant kill ratio. Also it was a bunch of kids.

I was just being inquisitive. To me, every civillian casuality or or coalition casualty is too many. During the conquest of a country, these losses are usually the most palatable since its accepted that there will be some.

In the effort to keep the peace and rebuild a country after war, its all the more disheartening. Forget that they were kids, nuns, or handicapped orphans. The point is they were not the enemy.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Tell me, Tricky, how is that US lost interest in Afghanistan? Also, I was under impression that we built a coalition to go to Afghanistan, isn't that working in there?
In case you haven't read the news, Grams, the Taliban is back and wreaking havoc. Had the US not been spread so thin, we could be there in force to combat them, like we did after 9-11. Yes, there is a coalition, but it is undermanned. As much as I agree that the US cannot be the policeman of the world, Afhanistan is the place where the heart of the terrorists is located. (Well, that and Saudi Arabia). I think a very good case could be made for our presence there, unlike Iraq.

Of course, that might not have prevented the tragedy that just occurred, but if it looked more like we were interested in keeping the peace there than raining death upon our enemies (and anybody near them), then international consensus might go easier on us.

But I will admit it is too early to know what really happened. It is not too early to say that this is a horrible setback for the US, not to mention the nine children.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

In case you haven't read the news, Grams, the Taliban is back and wreaking havoc. Had the US not been spread so thin, we could be there in force to combat them, like we did after 9-11. Yes, there is a coalition, but it is undermanned. As much as I agree that the US cannot be the policeman of the world, Afhanistan is the place where the heart of the terrorists is located. (Well, that and Saudi Arabia). I think a very good case could be made for our presence there, unlike Iraq.

Of course, that might not have prevented the tragedy that just occurred, but if it looked more like we were interested in keeping the peace there than raining death upon our enemies (and anybody near them), then international consensus might go easier on us.

But I will admit it is too early to know what really happened. It is not too early to say that this is a horrible setback for the US, not to mention the nine children.

After we drove the major forces away or killed/jailed them there was little a large army could do. There is no Taliban army or Taliban territory, every time someone claims to be it they get taken out. This accident is unfortunate, but it does not prove to me that Bush/USA abandoned Afghanistan, more like the news channels stopped covering it because Afghanistan does not have nice hotels like Iraq does.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
I was just being inquisitive. To me, every civillian casuality or or coalition casualty is too many. During the conquest of a country, these losses are usually the most palatable since its accepted that there will be some.

In the effort to keep the peace and rebuild a country after war, its all the more disheartening. Forget that they were kids, nuns, or handicapped orphans. The point is they were not the enemy.
Yes, I understand your question, and I agree that any such losses are, as the generals say, "regrettable".

My point was not that those kids are more valueable than any other "collateral damagees", but that this incident so badly hurts the US presence there and in turn, the chance for peace in the region.

As a corrolary, I recall the case more than a decade ago in South America where the Contras were found to have murdered some nuns. More than anything else, that turned the most of the world against them and solidified the US people against our meddling. Okay, Iran-Contra was a big part too. But the bad PR from an "atrocity" like this counts far more than the mere number of lives.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


After we drove the major forces away or killed/jailed them there was little a large army could do. There is no Taliban army or Taliban territory, every time someone claims to be it they get taken out. This accident is unfortunate, but it does not prove to me that Bush/USA abandoned Afghanistan, more like the news channels stopped covering it because Afghanistan does not have nice hotels like Iraq does.

Oh, dear.

The new tragedy in Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,11447,1103552,00.html)

What has gone so badly wrong? The Afghan transitional government, put in place after the Bonn peace accords in December 2001, was dominated by the US-backed Northern Alliance and, with the exception of Karzai, accords no positions of power to ethnic Pashtun, who provided the powerbase of the Taliban. After the fall of the Taliban, some 60,000 Pashtun fled the north in the face of revenge attacks by Uzbek and Tajik militias. The US continued to provide support to local warlords in its fight against the remnants of the Taliban in 2002, despite the fact that the new Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission was building up a massive caseload of complaints against the militias. It is hardly surprising that few Pashtun, or civilians from any group, feel they have a stake in the government.

Last Thursday, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Afghanistan to meet two prominent warlords, Rashid Dostum and Atta Mohammed, who have spent much of the past year fighting each other. He also had a photo call with the beleaguered Karzai, to whom he offered words of encouragement: "Those who have been defeated... would like to come back... but they will not have that opportunity." But in the absence of better security, legitimacy conferred by the US is a liability.

Even before the Taliban re-emerged, the authority of the transitional government did not extend much beyond the capital. In October the UN security council extended the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force, but it is yet to be deployed beyond Kabul. The country remains essentially lawless. Many government departments are headed by former commanders and once again Afghanistan is providing three-quarters of the world's opium crop.



Afghanistan's Bonn Agreement: A Catalog of Missed Opportunities (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghanistan/bonn1yr-bck.htm)

There are other articles on the failure of the Bonn agreement, the Taliban regrouping and, oh, did I mention that six million Afghans need food relief? (http://msnbc.com/news/1002930.asp?0sl=-11)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron
After we drove the major forces away or killed/jailed them there was little a large army could do. There is no Taliban army or Taliban territory, every time someone claims to be it they get taken out.
Perhaps it is my peculiar misconception, but I feel like the armed forces could do a lot there. It wouldn't all be fighting. It would be a lot of grunt work, helping rebuild, forging friendships or doing any of a number of non-combat tasks. They still need a "cop on the corner", which is why it should still be the armed forces, but can't they do anything besides fight? Heck, even boring old police work might discourage attacks from isolated Taliban loyalists. Yes, it is important to punish those attackers, but with better communication with the people, such tragedies as this recent one might be avoided.

Originally posted by Grammatron
This accident is unfortunate, but it does not prove to me that Bush/USA abandoned Afghanistan, more like the news channels stopped covering it because Afghanistan does not have nice hotels like Iraq does.
It almost sounds as if you are trying to blame the media for this. If you read international news, Afghanistan is discussed all the time. The Taliban, or at least hard-line Islamic fundamentalists, are there and they are among the major factions, although certainly not the only warlords. It certainly seems that the US was not committed to bringing peace and democracy to Afghanistan. Considering their great interest in doing so in Iraq, I have to wonder why not. Surely the murderous warlords in Afghanistan are comparable to Saddam.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I the term "Surgical Strike" just an oxymoron? Using a ground attack aircraft to strike at one person who may or may not have been home, and in the process killing a group of children is pretty poor form.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3298945.stm



You don't use an A-10 for a surgical strike. So someone is being a moron for using that term. It's either you or the idiot you quoted.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Troll


You don't use an A-10 for a surgical strike. So someone is being a moron for using that term. It's either you or the idiot you quoted.

So they deliberately used an A-10 knowing it would kill civilians?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


So they deliberately used an A-10 knowing it would kill civilians?

No. They used it as it was available. But it does not generally carry the precision weapons and an accident occurred. Not a big conspiracy thing really. Sorry for you and your chances of claiming such

[Mr Manifesto]

No. They used it as it was available. But it does not generally carry the precision weapons and an accident occurred. Not a big conspiracy thing really. Sorry for you and your chances of claiming such

Interesting. I trust you have some sort of source for this speculation, since it runs counter to the BBC article which says:

The attack was carried out on Saturday in the village of Hutala, in a remote area of southern Ghazni province.

US officials said they were acting on extensive intelligence and had killed a former Taleban militant, Mullah Wazir.


So it wasn't a case of, "I was just in the neighbourhood with my A-10 and thought I'd drop some spare ordinance I wasn't using on you." The target seems to have left the area ten days earlier. It seems this was a pre-mediated attack. So why not send in something capable of surgical strikes?

I believe that you are talking out your rear, that the A-10 is, in fact, capable of surgical strikes. It is used against tanks, for example, which doesn't require decimating whole areas to get the tanks that are within it. The possiblity that you are talking crap is supported by the fact that you use the phrase 'they used it as it was available'. You don't seem to know anything about the incident. It was not ad-hoc, it was planned, and if something more appropriate existed they would have used it.

In other words: it was either a surgical strike, or they knowingly used the wrong weapon knowing it would kill civilians.

[Mr Manifesto]

Looks like it's a case of you not knowing what you're talking about.

The A10 Warthog is the first Air Force aircraft specially designed for close air support of ground forces. They are simple, effective and survivable twin-engine jet aircraft that can be used against all ground targets, including tanks and other armored vehicles.

The A10 Warthog has excellent maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude, and are highly accurate weapons-delivery platforms. They can loiter near battle areas for extended periods of time and operate under 1,000-foot ceilings (303.3 meters) with 1.5-mile (2.4 kilometers) visibility. Their wide combat radius and short takeoff and landing capability permit operations in and out of locations near front lines. Using night vision goggles, A10 Warthog pilots can conduct their missions during darkness.

The A10 Warthog has Night Vision Imaging Systems (NVIS), goggle compatible single-seat cockpits forward of their wings and a large bubble canopy which provides pilots all-around vision. The pilots are protected by titanium armor that also protects parts of the flight-control system. The redundant primary structural sections allow the aircraft to enjoy better survivability during close air support than did previous aircraft.
(snip- stuff about its ability to survive direct hits from certain types of ammunition, as well as maintenence info)
Avionics equipment includes communications, inertial navigation systems, fire control and weapons delivery systems, target penetration aids and night vision goggles. Their weapons delivery systems include heads-up displays that indicate airspeed, altitude, dive angle, navigation information and weapons aiming references; a low altitude safety and targeting enhancement system (LASTE) which provides constantly computing impact point freefall ordnance delivery; and Pave Penny laser-tracking pods under the fuselage. The aircraft also have armament control panels, and infrared and electronic countermeasures to handle surface-to-air-missile threats. Installation of the Global Positioning System is currently underway for all aircraft.

The A10 Warthog's 30mm GAU-8/A Gatling gun can fire 3,900 rounds a minute and can defeat an array of ground targets to include tanks. Some of their other equipment includes an inertial navigation system, electronic countermeasures, target penetration aids, self-protection systems, and AGM-65 Maverick and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.

The first production A10 Warthog was delivered to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., in October 1975. It was designed specially for the close air support mission and had the ability to combine large military loads, long loiter and wide combat radius, which proved to be vital assets to the United States and its allies during Operation Desert Storm and Operation Noble Anvil. In the Gulf War, A10 Warthogs had a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles.


Link (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/a10_warthog.asp)
Does this sound like the specs of a plane that can't carry out surgical strikes? Better start again and find a new argument.

About the AGM-65 Maverick Missile (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-65.htm)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Interesting. I trust you have some sort of source for this speculation, since it runs counter to the BBC article which says:



So it wasn't a case of, "I was just in the neighbourhood with my A-10 and thought I'd drop some spare ordinance I wasn't using on you." The target seems to have left the area ten days earlier. It seems this was a pre-mediated attack. So why not send in something capable of surgical strikes?

I believe that you are talking out your rear, that the A-10 is, in fact, capable of surgical strikes. It is used against tanks, for example, which doesn't require decimating whole areas to get the tanks that are within it. The possiblity that you are talking crap is supported by the fact that you use the phrase 'they used it as it was available'. You don't seem to know anything about the incident. It was not ad-hoc, it was planned, and if something more appropriate existed they would have used it.

In other words: it was either a surgical strike, or they knowingly used the wrong weapon knowing it would kill civilians.

You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe.

A more likely scenario is "Hey we may have some dude here let's get him now, what's available, send it in" The A-10 is used against tanks because it has a great strifing capability. That generally means you aren't concerned with what is nearby so long as the primary target is hit. This is generally because you are all alone and tanks have you outgunned.

No one in their right mind calls for an A-10 for a precision strike. Enlist and spend a few years in the military and you'll learn it that way if you refuse to learn it this way. :hit:

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Troll


You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe.

A more likely scenario is "Hey we may have some dude here let's get him now, what's available, send it in" The A-10 is used against tanks because it has a great strifing capability. That generally means you aren't concerned with what is nearby so long as the primary target is hit. This is generally because you are all alone and tanks have you outgunned.

No one in their right mind calls for an A-10 for a precision strike. Enlist and spend a few years in the military and you'll learn it that way if you refuse to learn it this way.

Have it your way- although you haven't supplied any evidence besides your pretension to expert knowledge. So, basically, you're saying they sent in the wrong tool for the job in their eagerness to get rid of... someone... knowing there was a pretty good chance (in fact 100% as it turned out, but even the biggest dimwit must have known that using a plane without surgical strike capability on a village would result in 'accidents' as you call it) of civilian casualties.

So, I'll ask you again... Did the US use the wrong weapon knowing it would result in civilian casualties?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Have it your way- although you haven't supplied any evidence besides your pretension to expert knowledge. So, basically, you're saying they sent in the wrong tool for the job in their eagerness to get rid of... someone... knowing there was a pretty good chance (in fact 100% as it turned out, but even the biggest dimwit must have known that using a plane without surgical strike capability on a village would result in 'accidents' as you call it) of civilian casualties.

So, I'll ask you again... Did the US use the wrong weapon knowing it would result in civilian casualties?

I don't know the idiot that called it in or the idiot that assigned an A-10 for the strike. So there's no way I could say they knowingly called in something as stupid as that. Do you or your resources know the idiots?

And I can safely say accident because killing children isn't a thing we strive for, no matter how much you'd like to twist it into that line of thinking.

Did they use the wrong weapon? Yes

That's the sensible answer to a sensible question. A question you didn't ask. But don't worry, I know we all have limitations

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tricky

Perhaps it is my peculiar misconception, but I feel like the armed forces could do a lot there. It wouldn't all be fighting. It would be a lot of grunt work, helping rebuild, forging friendships or doing any of a number of non-combat tasks. They still need a "cop on the corner", which is why it should still be the armed forces, but can't they do anything besides fight? Heck, even boring old police work might discourage attacks from isolated Taliban loyalists. Yes, it is important to punish those attackers, but with better communication with the people, such tragedies as this recent one might be avoided.

Actually, it was an coalition decision to keep the US warfighting forces separate from the coalition peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan. They did not want the lines between peacekeepers (for doing the kind of work you describe above) and Al Qaeda / terrorist hunters blurred, because the other coalition members no longer wish to engage the Taliban. Therefore US troops are all supposed to be hunting terrorists, not peacekeeping.

Perhaps your plan is better than the one that the allies came up with, but you should convince the UN and NATO of that if you want to make the change.

MattJ

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I the term "Surgical Strike" just an oxymoron? Using a ground attack aircraft to strike at one person who may or may not have been home, and in the process killing a group of children is pretty poor form.

"Surgical Strike"? You're obviously a civilian who thinks that watching the media coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq makes him an expert.

Maybe you should write the squadron commander and tell him how you would have planned the mission better, and how you, as the pilot, would have seen the civilians in the strike zone before weapons release and aborted the mission.

Sit back and armchair-quarterback the conflict to your heart's content, a_u_p. You simply expose your ignorance of military operations and planning for all to witness.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
In other words: it was either a surgical strike, or they knowingly used the wrong weapon knowing it would kill civilians.

Typical use of the False Dilemma fallacy by a propagandist.

Try again...

[Kodiak]

What we don't know is what intelligence the coalition forces were working with when the mission was planned and executed. The ordinance and the aircraft used to take it to the target was purposefully chosen.

The pending investigation will reveal what that intelligence was, and why the mission planners made the decisions that did.

Those of you who think the U.S. mission planners would purposefully target and kill civilians refuse to face the fact that no military power in the world works harder to 1. avoid civilian casualties and 2. rebuild the civilian infrastructure of the nations involved after the war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


"Surgical Strike"? You're obviously a civilian who thinks that watching the media coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq makes him an expert.

Maybe you should write the squadron commander and tell him how you would have planned the mission better, and how you, as the pilot, would have seen the civilians in the strike zone before weapons release and aborted the mission.

Sit back a armchair-quarterback the conflict to your heart's content, a_u_p. You simply expose your ignorance of military operations and planning for all to witness.

Perhaps the idea of using missiles to kill one person in a village is a stupid idea right from the start. Israel seems to have been able to convince many that it is possible, this event demonstrates the folly of that idea.

I am wondering about the ignorance of those who think you can fly in with a jet, fire with multiple weapons at a village, and not expect civilian casualties.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Troll

No one in their right mind calls for an A-10 for a precision strike.

Why not? It can carry both guided Maverick missiles, laser-guided bombs and electro/optically guided bombs. Furthermore it's very maneuverable at low altitudes and has a very low minimum airspeed, which makes it very accurate.

The Thunderbolt is designed to provide close-combat ground-support - that requires high accuracy.

Which weapon platform do you suggest are better at performing precision strikes than the Thunderbolt?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Perhaps the idea of using missiles to kill one person in a village is a stupid idea right from the start. Israel seems to have been able to convince many that it is possible, this event demonstrates the folly of that idea.

I am wondering about the ignorance of those who think you can fly in with a jet, fire with multiple weapons at a village, and not expect civilian casualties.

Ahh, a_u_p...

Where would you be without hindsight, baby??

Again, I invite you to write the Pentagon from your armchair and inform them of their "folly". Then tell them exactly how you would have done it.

When it comes to ignorance, what qualifies you to wonder about others', while simultaneously ignoring your own??

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Typical use of the False Dilemma fallacy by a propagandist.

Try again...

It's traditional, when accusing someone of using a false dilemma, to provide the 3rd or more options that are allegedly available. Maybe you thought you were clever because you know the names of logical fallicies by rote.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Actually, it was an coalition decision to keep the US warfighting forces separate from the coalition peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan. They did not want the lines between peacekeepers (for doing the kind of work you describe above) and Al Qaeda / terrorist hunters blurred, because the other coalition members no longer wish to engage the Taliban. Therefore US troops are all supposed to be hunting terrorists, not peacekeeping.

Perhaps your plan is better than the one that the allies came up with, but you should convince the UN and NATO of that if you want to make the change.

MattJ
Well, that's true. The role of the US was restricted, but I suspect that if the US wanted to commit more resources to peacekeeping and rebuilding, then neither the UN nor NATO would object too strenuously.

Interestingly, there was a very timely Doonesbury strip (http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20031210) today on this very subject.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


It's traditional, when accusing someone of using a false dilemma, to provide the 3rd or more options that are allegedly available. Maybe you thought you were clever because you know the names of logical fallicies by rote.

Please read my accompanying posts, but, to reiterate: without knowing the intel the planners possessed, any of a multitude of options could be possible.

To spell it out plainly though...

The attack might not have been "surgical" (unguided rockets and bullets from the A-10's GAU cannon, for example).

They knowingly used the right weapon, but not knowing it would kill civilians.

The ordinance, or the pilot, or the guidence system, or a combination of these, could of malfunctioned and caused the weapon to stray from it's intended target.

False intel could have been fed to the coalition so that any attack would guarantee civilian child casualities (a la "human shield"), with obvious repercussions...

[Mr Manifesto]

I'm not saying that civilians were purposefully targeted, I'm saying the US military didn't give a crap. Why else would you fire upon a village?

[Skeptic]

Enlist and spend a few years in the military and you'll learn it that way

But, Troll, if Mr. Manifesto enlists and actually LEARNS something about the military, he won't be able to play "armchair expert that knows more than all the generals" any more...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Enlist and spend a few years in the military and you'll learn it that way

But, Troll, if Mr. Manifesto enlists and actually LEARNS something about the military, he won't be able to play "armchair expert that knows more than all the generals" any more...

Oh, that's right... You were in the IDF, weren't you?

Did you get to do any cool things like bulldoze Palestinian houses? Did you laugh while their livelihoods were destroyed? Did it make you feel like a real man?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Kodiak
False intel could have been fed to the coalition so that any attack would guarantee civilian child casualities (a la "human shield"), with obvious repercussions...

Just a quick comment on this point. It is the armed forces responsibility to assure that the intelligence they base their decisions on is accurate - particularly for this sort of engagements. Wether bystanders are killed by an error or mistake by the pilot, equipment malfunction or bad military intelligence doesn't matter. The outcome of an attack is the responsibility of the men who order it done.

(But note that there is a subtle difference between being responsible and being culpable.)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Why not? It can carry both guided Maverick missiles, laser-guided bombs and electro/optically guided bombs. Furthermore it's very maneuverable at low altitudes and has a very low minimum airspeed, which makes it very accurate.

The Thunderbolt is designed to provide close-combat ground-support - that requires high accuracy.

Which weapon platform do you suggest are better at performing precision strikes than the Thunderbolt?

"Accurate" isn't the same thing as "precision." An A-10 is designed to wipe out ground targets in large swaths. Hitting a row of tanks in the middle of town is "accurate."

Dropping ordnance down a chimney and leaving the surround homes standing is "precision." Any number of alternatives could have provided this kind of precision ordnance, but the question was how far away were they, and how long would they take to arrive?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I'm not saying that civilians were purposefully targeted, I'm saying the US military didn't give a crap. Why else would you fire upon a village?

That doesn't change the fact that you posited a false dilemma to try and ensure an answer you desired.

You say the US military didn't give a crap. Do you have evidence, or are you giving your unsubstantiated opinion?

Also the entire village was not fired upon. The target happened to be within a village. As to why - I can think of lots of reasons to attack targets hidden within villages.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Oh, that's right... You were in the IDF, weren't you?

Did you get to do any cool things like bulldoze Palestinian houses? Did you laugh while their livelihoods were destroyed? Did it make you feel like a real man?

Come on, you know the only way to feel like a real man is to strap 30 pounds of C4 to your abdomen and catch a bus. Praise Allah, buddy, praise Allah.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I'm not saying that civilians were purposefully targeted, I'm saying the US military didn't give a crap. Why else would you fire upon a village?

Uh... because it's well-documented that high-profile targets hide behind civilians?

Oh, wait, I forgot, you're the fellow who thinks Israel firebombs city blocks at random. No wonder you had to ask such a silly question.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Just a quick comment on this point. It is the armed forces responsibility to assure that the intelligence they base their decisions on is accurate - particularly for this sort of engagements. Wether bystanders are killed by an error or mistake by the pilot, equipment malfunction or bad military intelligence doesn't matter. The outcome of an attack is the responsibility of the men who order it done.

(But note that there is a subtle difference between being responsible and being culpable.)

I think we agree...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jocko


Uh... because it's well-documented that high-profile targets hide behind civilians?

Oh, wait, I forgot, you're the fellow who thinks Israel firebombs city blocks at random. No wonder you had to ask such a silly question.

I do? I didn't know that. Mind finding where I said that?.. I'd like to edit it.

[Skeptic]

Oh, that's right... You were in the IDF, weren't you?

Did you get to do any cool things like bulldoze Palestinian houses? Did you laugh while their livelihoods were destroyed? Did it make you feel like a real man?

See what I mean, Troll?

Obviously, Mr. Manifesto knows no more about the real idf as he knows about the real US Army, namely, nothing at all. But that doesn't stop him from posting silly cliches and calling them the "real truth" about these "evil forces of imperialism" that "the generals don't want you to know", anyway.

In your case, Mr Manifesto, it seems that ignorance truly is bliss. It certainly allows you to engage in your favoite activity--"socialist" criticism--without the onerous burden of learning anything, or knowing what the hell you're talking about.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I do? I didn't know that. Mind finding where I said that?.. I'd like to edit it.

Edit it to read, "Randomly firebombing city blocks and machine-gunning the survivors as they run into the streets," you mean?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jocko


"Accurate" isn't the same thing as "precision." An A-10 is designed to wipe out ground targets in large swaths. Hitting a row of tanks in the middle of town is "accurate."

Dropping ordnance down a chimney and leaving the surround homes standing is "precision."


Attacking enemy ground forces that are engaged to your own ground forces, without causing friendly casualities requires "precision" - and that is precisely what the Thunderbolt was designed to do, and what it generally is used for.

Also, the Thunderbolt uses the same ordinance to attack targets on the ground as does the other bombers and fighter-bombers in the US armed forces, so if it is at least as accurate in delivering the ordinance it must necessarily be as precise.


Any number of alternatives could have provided this kind of precision ordnance, but the question was how far away were they, and how long would they take to arrive?

Not really. The question was wether the A-10 Thunderbolt is a good platform to use for conducting precision strikes or not. My (admittedly uneductade) opinion is that it is at least as good as any other airborn platform the US armed forces uses.

[Leif Roar]

(Contents deleted as it was just an accidental repost of my posting just above.)

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Oh, that's right... You were in the IDF, weren't you?

Did you get to do any cool things like bulldoze Palestinian houses? Did you laugh while their livelihoods were destroyed? Did it make you feel like a real man?


I doubt if you could even begin to understand the motives of someone in the IDF.

I think you understand what being a "real man" is , about as much as you understand military tactics or US gun laws.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph



I doubt if you could even begin to understand the motives of someone in the IDF.

You mean like... They have to serve because it's mandatory?

I think you understand what being a "real man" is , about as much as you understand military tactics or US gun laws.

Oh, now you're just being silly!

http://www.wrasserecords.com/artists/images/jointpicture.jpg

They even wrote a song about it. Or close enough, anyway.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jocko


Edit it to read, "Randomly firebombing city blocks and machine-gunning the survivors as they run into the streets," you mean?

Oh, so I didn't say it. You were just building strawmen. Phew! I thought I was typing during my blackouts again.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You mean like... They have to serve because it's mandatory?


Oh, now you're just being silly!

http://www.wrasserecords.com/artists/images/jointpicture.jpg

They even wrote a song about it. Or close enough, anyway.

You seemed to imply that being in the IDF means you enjoy bulldozing women & children. Are you truly that ignorant that you believe something like that.

This may surprise you but not everybody in the military -inc the IDF--is there because it's mandatory. As I said--I doubt if you'd understand why.

You sit back & second guess professional military planners and you've never even been in the military.

You imply that a former member of the IDF enjoys bulldozing children.

Now you're suggesting that the only reason someone would join the IDF is because it's mandatory.


You're not doing very much for your credibility if you really believe
garbage like that...................

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


You seemed to imply that being in the IDF means you enjoy bulldozing women & children. Are you truly that ignorant that you believe something like that.

This may surprise you but not everybody in the military -inc the IDF--is there because it's mandatory. As I said--I doubt if you'd understand why.

You sit back & second guess professional military planners and you've never even been in the military.

You imply that a former member of the IDF enjoys bulldozing children.

Now you're suggesting that the only reason someone would join the IDF is because it's mandatory.


You're not doing very much for your credibility if you really believe
garbage like that...................

Skeptic previously mentioned on this forum that he did mandatory time with the IDF. He hasn't mentioned that he's ever served voluntarily with them. Not that I'd care if he did. My point is that it's a bit rich that he suggests I 'learn something about the military' (which he has, obliquely, in his post) when his toughest opponents were armed with rocks. No, wait- some of them had brick technology. I bet that was a pants-filling fight!


Soooo... Ball back in your court, Ralphy-boy.

[Mr Manifesto]

Geez, what've the Yanks got against Afghani children (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_53709.asp)?

[tedly]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes. Mostly because of the high civilian-to-combatant kill ratio. Also it was a bunch of kids.


I apologize for jumping in so late, but this ratio is, depressingly, not uncommon for modern war. The best thing I've read on this, (besides anything by Keegan) in the last 10 yrs is Gwynn Dyer's 'War', the accompaniment to Nova's series of the same name. I should look up the numbers, and will if challenged, but as I recall in the last century the numbers changed from beginning to end, from about 15:1 military to civilian to 1:15 military to civilian. The great majority of casualties are now children.

As a former soldaten I wanna say, they're taking all the fun oudda da job.

[c0rbin]

Sometimes I would not be opposed to reverting to the old days of war when you and 25,000 of your fellow gentleman faced off against 25,000 of the enemy's gentleman and had duels of musketry and cannon.

At least then there would be no hiding behind altitude or civilians.

As it stands, our enemy hides in villages and we are forced to seek them out there--lest they hijack innocents and fly them into our villages with the express purpose of killing our civilians.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Geez, what've the Yanks got against Afghani children (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_53709.asp)?

Wow, another fallacy, the Loaded Question (A.K.A. Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition)

Color me shocked... :rolleyes:


:tr:

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Skeptic previously mentioned on this forum that he did mandatory time with the IDF. He hasn't mentioned that he's ever served voluntarily with them. Not that I'd care if he did. My point is that it's a bit rich that he suggests I 'learn something about the military' (which he has, obliquely, in his post) when his toughest opponents were armed with rocks. No, wait- some of them had brick technology. I bet that was a pants-filling fight!


Soooo... Ball back in your court, Ralphy-boy.

Are you an adult???............Do you even have a job??

Most of what you post indicates "un-employed college student still living with mum & dad".....

When you grow up and enter the real world.......you may find it changes your present outlook on things.....

[Skeptic]

Are you an adult???............Do you even have a job??

"Mr. Manifesto" is one of those people who, without ever serving in the military, "know" everything the evil generals do wrong; who without ever earning a dollar, "know" everything the evil capitalist do wrong; and without working a day in their life, "know" everything about the "rights of the workers" and what they workers should do.

In other words, his attitude is that of a typical teenager. As Mark Twain said about the way teenagers think, "when I was 16, my father was the dumbest person on earth. At 21, I was astonished how much the old man learned in five short years".

We all pass through that stage. "Mr. Manifesto" will, eventually, have to get a job, and that will be the end of his "revolutionary action for the opressed proletariat". In the meantime, he serves as an unintentional source of humor.

He is, of course, wrong on *every* *single* *point* he made about my experience in the idf, from the claim that I bulldozed buildings or enjoyed it to the claim that the palestinians had nothing but "brick technology" to the claim that the fact that there is a draft proves that I was somehow "forced" to serve against my will.

His idea of life in the idf is about as accurate as, say, Hollywood's portrayal of scientists in JURRASIC PARK or FRANKENSTEIN is of the real life of scientists, or (a better analogy, given the similar combination of ignorance and arrogance) a creationists' view of evolution. His boneheaded, yet cocksure, "claims" about the idf would make any soldier first laugh incredolously, then shake their head and walk away at such a display of ignorance.

You, as I understand it, are a veteran of the American army; no doubt, his views of the US Army are about as accurate as his views of the idf, and his "description" of it caused you the same laughter of incredulity over his ignorance his description of the idf caused me, for the same reason: they are a display of phenomenal ignorance coupled with overbearing arroghance. Even without being in the American Army, I snickered at his claims, since it is quite clear from his boneheaded claims that he has no idea what military life or culture in ANY army is like, let alone specifically in the idf or American one.

But, there's no point trying to explain this to him. He REALLY THINKS the fact that people won't reply to his posts about the idf or the American Army are "proof" he is correct. He simply cannot realize the truth, namely, that they show his ignorance and arrogance so clearly there's obviously no POINT in discussing anything with him.

[rikzilla]

I find it hard to believe that on a skeptic site there are so may gullible lefties ready to believe the worst, without even checking the facts.

The attack was against a site that had a huge arms cache. There is no dispute because there are remains of weapons, and there were huge secondary explosions after the attack. So there can be no doubt that this was a proper military target.

Hilferty said that troops attacked a compound used to store rockets, mines and artillery. The next morning, when they entered the area, they discovered the bodies of civilians.

"After we went in there, we discovered the next day, when we were trying to clear it, the bodies of two adults and six children under a collapsed wall," he said, according to the Reuters news service. "We don't know what caused the wall to collapse, because although we fired on the compound, there were secondary and tertiary explosions.



link to the article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52212-2003Dec10.html)

A better question is what were 6 kids doing at a Taliban arms dump?? Can you say "human shields"??

-z

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Skeptic
As Mark Twain said about the way teenagers think, "when I was 16, my father was the dumbest person on earth. At 21, I was astonished how much the old man learned in five short years".

Reminds me of something I think Will Rogers once said, "If you're 18 and not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're 21 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain."

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Oh, so I didn't say it. You were just building strawmen. Phew! I thought I was typing during my blackouts again.

A generalization, perhaps; a strawman... I'll let the rest of the forum decide that.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Are you an adult???............Do you even have a job??

"Mr. Manifesto" is one of those people who, without ever serving in the military, "know" everything the evil generals do wrong; who without ever earning a dollar, "know" everything the evil capitalist do wrong; and without working a day in their life, "know" everything about the "rights of the workers" and what they workers should do.

In other words, his attitude is that of a typical teenager. As Mark Twain said about the way teenagers think, "when I was 16, my father was the dumbest person on earth. At 21, I was astonished how much the old man learned in five short years".

We all pass through that stage. "Mr. Manifesto" will, eventually, have to get a job, and that will be the end of his "revolutionary action for the opressed proletariat". In the meantime, he serves as an unintentional source of humor.

He is, of course, wrong on *every* *single* *point* he made about my experience in the idf, from the claim that I bulldozed buildings or enjoyed it to the claim that the palestinians had nothing but "brick technology" to the claim that the fact that there is a draft proves that I was somehow "forced" to serve against my will.

His idea of life in the idf is about as accurate as, say, Hollywood's portrayal of scientists in JURRASIC PARK or FRANKENSTEIN is of the real life of scientists, or (a better analogy, given the similar combination of ignorance and arrogance) a creationists' view of evolution. His boneheaded, yet cocksure, "claims" about the idf would make any soldier first laugh incredolously, then shake their head and walk away at such a display of ignorance.

You, as I understand it, are a veteran of the American army; no doubt, his views of the US Army are about as accurate as his views of the idf, and his "description" of it caused you the same laughter of incredulity over his ignorance his description of the idf caused me, for the same reason: they are a display of phenomenal ignorance coupled with overbearing arroghance. Even without being in the American Army, I snickered at his claims, since it is quite clear from his boneheaded claims that he has no idea what military life or culture in ANY army is like, let alone specifically in the idf or American one.

But, there's no point trying to explain this to him. He REALLY THINKS the fact that people won't reply to his posts about the idf or the American Army are "proof" he is correct. He simply cannot realize the truth, namely, that they show his ignorance and arrogance so clearly there's obviously no POINT in discussing anything with him.

I was never in the army Skeptic. The year I turned 18, US involvement in Vietnam was at it's peak. This was also the year they instituted the draft lotterly. Low numbers were drafted--high numbers weren't. I drew #265 and was never called. I have the utmost respect for anybody who was though.

I hope Manifesto's not under any illusions as to what would've happened to Australia in the 40's without all those "evil, baby killing" Americans. A lot of allied soldiers died fighting the Japanese. The fact that some were drafted doesn't diminish their sacrifice one bit.

I think I've been around longer than Manifesto---long enough not to take what I have for granted. If it wasn't for the sacrifices made by others--I doubt I'd have it as easy as I do.



Since I never served in the military--I don't pretend to be an expert and criticize those who are.

I also have to laugh at someone-who from the relative safety of a computer desk--can criticize someone facing an angry,rock throwing mob. Who do you suppose would be the first one to fill their pants if they actually found themselves in a situation like that..................

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


I was never in the army Skeptic.

Ah! A chickenhawk.

Since I never served in the military--I don't pretend to be an expert and criticize those who are.

That's a pity, because criticism is what happens in a free society. That's allegedly what your armed forces are fighting for.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic

But, there's no point trying to explain this to him. He REALLY THINKS the fact that people won't reply to his posts about the idf or the American Army are "proof" he is correct. He simply cannot realize the truth, namely, that they show his ignorance and arrogance so clearly there's obviously no POINT in discussing anything with him.

Uh... People are replying to my posts. Several of them have jumped on me on this thread. Must've sucked in too many bulldozer fumes. Or did you get hit on the head with a rock while you were on duty?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


Are you an adult???............Do you even have a job??

Most of what you post indicates "un-employed college student still living with mum & dad".....

When you grow up and enter the real world.......you may find it changes your present outlook on things.....

Yeah, that must be it- I'm not in the real world. Great argument Ralphy. There's really only one counter-argument to that.

I had a dumb dog
It's name was -you guessed it- Ralph.
I had to shoot it.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I find it hard to believe that on a skeptic site there are so may gullible lefties ready to believe the worst, without even checking the facts.

The attack was against a site that had a huge arms cache. There is no dispute because there are remains of weapons, and there were huge secondary explosions after the attack. So there can be no doubt that this was a proper military target.

No-one's arguing that this was a proper military target. The guerilla being targeted when the other bunch of Afghani children were killed was probably legitimate as well. The issue is the means that the US military is using to destroy them. Obviously not enough measures are being taken to ensure civilians aren't being killed.

Which, y'know, chickenhawks like you couldn't give a crap about... But it's the stuff of dreams for terrorist recruiters. The Afghanis are a little tired of hearing 'oops, sorry!' a bit like some other country in the Middle East.

As to your second contention:

A better question is what were 6 kids doing at a Taliban arms dump?? Can you say "human shields"??

-z

All the more reason not to blow up arms dumps from planes (there were troops at the site, but their job obviously wasn't to check if there were civilians in the houses nearby or whatever) wouldn't you say? You can yap about human shields all you want- and feel free to use lots of question marks in the process. The people who live in the country you are occupying don't see it that way. And your original mission was to 'fight terror' (sic). You don't do that by killing civilians.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Yeah, that must be it- I'm not in the real world. Great argument Ralphy. There's really only one counter-argument to that.

I had a dumb dog
It's name was -you guessed it- Ralph.
I had to shoot it.

It is relevent. It goes to "Credibility of the witness".

If you were an A-10 pilot or a an officer in the USAF & commented on it's use here....your comments might be worth listening to.

If you'd ever actually faced an angry rock-throwing mob--maybe you'd be in a position to comment on others who'd been in that situation.


I think I called it right Manifesto............you're a college student
who's still dependant on mommy & daddy.

I doubt if you could even handle a job flipping burgers, never mind some of the things you're so quick to criticize others for.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


It is relevent. It goes to "Credibility of the witness".

If you were an A-10 pilot or a an officer in the USAF & commented on it's use here....your comments might be worth listening to.

If you'd ever actually faced an angry rock-throwing mob--maybe you'd be in a position to comment on others who'd been in that situation.


With that reasoning in mind, since you yourself have never served in the military in any form, or faced an angry rock-throwing mob, you can't comment either. So... Off you go!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


With that reasoning in mind, since you yourself have never served in the military in any form, or faced an angry rock-throwing mob, you can't comment either. So... Off you go!

I wasn't the one criticizing military planners.

I wasn't the one suggesting military people are murderers who enjoy killing.

I wasn't the one suggesting people are cowards for facing someone armed "only" with rocks.



Let me guess.........You're a political science major????????????

You sound a bit angry..........I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you on my list of "people who should not be allowed to have a gun".....................Oh--wait a minute----you're not old enough yet anyway.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Ah! A chickenhawk.

The chickenhawk/warmonger false dichotomy. I've heard this tune from you before.



That's a pity, because criticism is what happens in a free society. That's allegedly what your armed forces are fighting for.

And uninformed criticism is the calling card of *ssholes the world over. Freedom to state something doesn't make it true... even in Australia.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


With that reasoning in mind, since you yourself have never served in the military in any form, or faced an angry rock-throwing mob, you can't comment either. So... Off you go!

He's not commenting on the military. He's commenting on reactionary windbags in desperate search for any soapbox they can find - which, thanks to you, we ALL have a great deal of experience with.

[Jessica Blue]

And your original mission was to 'fight terror' (sic). You don't do that by killing civilians.Do you fight terror by causing it? Gung-ho military strikes at suspected enemies in villages almost always wipe out innocents too. Everytime that happens it drives recruiting and strips you of any moral superiority over those who kill your own civilians...ie. the terrorists themselves.

But it's a "war" against terror right? And in a war context you can apparently justify all collateral damage.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jocko


The chickenhawk/warmonger false dichotomy. I've heard this tune from you before.






Must've been right next to where I said the Israelis firebomb Palestine or whatever.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jocko


He's not commenting on the military. He's commenting on reactionary windbags in desperate search for any soapbox they can find - which, thanks to you, we ALL have a great deal of experience with.

Maybe I should just sit back and flame anyone who has an opinion around here. Oh, no need- you've already filled that niche.

I know, I'm not being fair. You're too thick to argue on my terms. Just try to make the flames a little more amusing, 'kay? ;)

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Maybe I should just sit back and flame anyone who has an opinion around here. Oh, no need- you've already filled that niche.

I know, I'm not being fair. You're too thick to argue on my terms. Just try to make the flames a little more amusing, 'kay? ;)

I was right,wasn't I.............you're a political science major.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


I was right,wasn't I... you're a political science major.

Not even close, Ralphy-boy. I'm planning on studying political history in 2004, but as of this moment I haven't even seen the inside of a university.


Well, that's not true... I've been to the uni bar a few times.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Not even close, Ralphy-boy. I'm planning on studying political history in 2004, but as of this moment I haven't even seen the inside of a university.


Well, that's not true... I've been to the uni bar a few times.

Political History-----political science..................sounds like a hit to me.

So you're not an unemployed college student.

You're an unemployed high school student......who likes to drink. Very impressive.....

Don't worry----I won't tell your mom about the drinking..............

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ralph


Political History-----political science..................sounds like a hit to me.

So you're not an unemployed college student.

You're an unemployed high school student......who likes to drink. Very impressive.....

Don't worry----I won't tell your mom about the drinking..............

Well, seems like I hit the nail on the head in my description of "Mr. Manifesto", haven't I, Ralph? A typical teenager world-saver.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Skeptic previously mentioned on this forum that he did mandatory time with the IDF. He hasn't mentioned that he's ever served voluntarily with them. Not that I'd care if he did. My point is that it's a bit rich that he suggests I 'learn something about the military' (which he has, obliquely, in his post) when his toughest opponents were armed with rocks. No, wait- some of them had brick technology. I bet that was a pants-filling fight!


Soooo... Ball back in your court, Ralphy-boy.

Ummm...Katyusha rockets?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Ummm...Katyusha rockets?

They're an occupational hazard anywhere you live in Israel, like suicide bombers. Being in the IDF doesn't increase your chances of being hit by one. The things sound about as accurate as a scud missile, if this (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/970704/1997070408.html) article is anything to go by.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Well, seems like I hit the nail on the head in my description of "Mr. Manifesto", haven't I, Ralph? A typical teenager world-saver.

Yup, and when I grow up I'm going to get Israeli citizen ship and do my mandatory three years. I plan to spend it shooting rock throwers- preferably children. Then, my rite of passage into manhood will be complete.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Yup, and when I grow up I'm going to get Israeli citizen ship and do my mandatory three years. I plan to spend it shooting rock throwers- preferably children. Then, my rite of passage into manhood will be complete.

Oh grow up. Being able to push people's buttons doesn't mean you're clever or superior - it just means you're a jerk (and you're not even particularly good at it.)

[Kodiak]

Mr. Manifesto... :tr:

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Oh grow up. Being able to push people's buttons doesn't mean you're clever or superior - it just means you're a jerk (and you're not even particularly good at it.)

You obviously hold me to a higher standard than Skeptic who, just quietly, started this whole fiasco. No-one asked him to come in here sniping about 'armchair experts'. I was supplying evidence to my claims, which you seemed to be close to agreeing with. Skeptic was only here to flame. I flamed back.

So, don't expect me to be civil with Skeptic- he doesn't deserve it.

[Skeptic]

No-one asked him to come in here sniping about 'armchair experts'.

But it's FUN... :D

Especially when, like you, the armchair "expert" obviously has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


No-one's arguing that this was a proper military target. The guerilla being targeted when the other bunch of Afghani children were killed was probably legitimate as well. The issue is the means that the US military is using to destroy them. Obviously not enough measures are being taken to ensure civilians aren't being killed.

Which, y'know, chickenhawks like you couldn't give a crap about... But it's the stuff of dreams for terrorist recruiters. The Afghanis are a little tired of hearing 'oops, sorry!' a bit like some other country in the Middle East.

As to your second contention:
[b]

All the more reason not to blow up arms dumps from planes (there were troops at the site, but their job obviously wasn't to check if there were civilians in the houses nearby or whatever) wouldn't you say? You can yap about human shields all you want- and feel free to use lots of question marks in the process. The people who live in the country you are occupying don't see it that way. And your original mission was to 'fight terror' (sic). You don't do that by killing civilians.

Manifesto,

Perhaps you really are a troll....for sure you are not into making friends or influencing people. Just what do you get out of being here on JREF anyway? If it's just the thrill of being a jerk, then a troll is just what you are.

You seem to love to jump on people that express a conservative outlook, yet have not served in the military....you play alot of "gotcha" with that stupid chickenhawk label.

#1. It's old, hackneyed...and unfunny. You remind me of my daughter when she was 5. She had one joke and told it again and again without realizing that a joke is only funny once.

#2. If you cared enough to have actually ever read any of my posts you'd know that I am an Army veteran. So you will have to call me a baby-killer instead of your beloved and overused chicken-hawk label.

You should also understand that your penchant for childish name calling is going to make people think you are a particularly obnoxious brat.

-z

BTW: The fact remains that this was a legitimate military target. Our troops have enough restrictive rules of engagement without having to further endanger themselves by either insuring that no civilians are around before an attack...or just leaving a huge cache of weapons alone. By doing such a thing we'd be insuring that #1. More civilian shields are used by the enemy in the future, and #2. that more GI's would needlessly be put at risk.

Please try and rebut the above without any puerile non-sequiturs.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla


BTW: The fact remains that this was a legitimate military target. Our troops have enough restrictive rules of engagement without having to further endanger themselves by either insuring that no civilians are around before an attack...or just leaving a huge cache of weapons alone. By doing such a thing we'd be insuring that #1. More civilian shields are used by the enemy in the future, and #2. that more GI's would needlessly be put at risk.



Your country has the most equipped, highly trained, and largest army in the world. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you can't ensure the safety of civilians without getting GI's killed? And so what if they did? You knew that soldiers were going to die when you declared war on these countries. Don't forget- it wasn't Afghanistan that rammed the planes into your buildings, it was a terrorist cell that pledges allegiance to no-one. This little fact seems to be conveniently overlooked by the warhawks.

So you freed Afghanistan from the yoke of oppression. Bravo. If all you have to show for it is oppression from other warlords, and some dead children, you might as well have stayed home and sent assassins after Osama. You certainly couldn't have done a worse job than you're doing now.

[Skeptic]

Manifesto,

Perhaps you really are a troll....for sure you are not into making friends or influencing people. Just what do you get out of being here on JREF anyway? If it's just the thrill of being a jerk, then a troll is just what you are.

Well, I don't he's intentionally a jerk. It's just the "world saver" stage he's going through. Most of us have been there once.

You see, "Mr. Manifesto" will continue to expose the crime of the imperialistic evil USA until evil capitalistic imperialism collpases under the weight of its own corruption... or dad stops sending him money, whichever comes first.

[rikzilla]

Your opinion is noted and discarded as being uninformed. Superior military technology is highly effective in lowering civilian casualties. It is not 100% effective, and never will be.

Your assertions merely point up your ignorance.

-z

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Your opinion is noted and discarded as being uninformed. Superior military technology is highly effective in lowering civilian casualties. It is not 100% effective, and never will be.

Your assertions merely point up your ignorance.

-z

It isn't just the technology, it's the size of the military and it's training as well. The US has always been allergic to sending in ground forces, Lord knows why, at the cost of civilian lives (for example in Kosovo and Bosnia). It would seem she doesn't have much confidence in her own ground troops, at least not until the Iraq war.

So- your counter argument has been noted, and found faulty in that it only addresses one of the three factors I mentioned.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Mr. Manifesto... :tr:

No perhaps about it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Well, seems like I hit the nail on the head in my description of "Mr. Manifesto", haven't I, Ralph? A typical teenager world-saver.

I bet he loved his social studies class with his far left teacher preaching his own views to the class about how bad and evil the military is and the government for ever using them in any conflict anywhere

[Mr Manifesto]

Where, O Leif Roar, are your haughty remarks now? ;)

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Manifesto,

Perhaps you really are a troll....for sure you are not into making friends or influencing people. Just what do you get out of being here on JREF anyway? If it's just the thrill of being a jerk, then a troll is just what you are.

Well, I don't he's intentionally a jerk. It's just the "world saver" stage he's going through. Most of us have been there once.

You see, "Mr. Manifesto" will continue to expose the crime of the imperialistic evil USA until evil capitalistic imperialism collpases under the weight of its own corruption... or dad stops sending him money, whichever comes first.

I predict all the marxist crap will end within 6 months from the time mommy & daddy decide to cut the purse springs.

Armed only with his powerfull intellect, his charming personality, and a batchelors degree in political history..........he'll be lucky to get a minimum wage Mcjob.

He'll have to live in the low-rent (high-crime) side of town. The local thugs will spot him a mile away and he'll probably get mugged with that "victim mentality" he has.

You won't see any more "Mr. Manifesto" posts but if you see something from "Mr. Imperialist Running Dog, War Mongering ,Gun Nut".......................you'll know who it is.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You obviously hold me to a higher standard than Skeptic who, just quietly, started this whole fiasco. No-one asked him to come in here sniping about 'armchair experts'. I was supplying evidence to my claims, which you seemed to be close to agreeing with. Skeptic was only here to flame. I flamed back.

So, don't expect me to be civil with Skeptic- he doesn't deserve it.

Don't forget about me...

I've been holding a_u_p's, Malachi's, as well as your feet to the fire for months now...


And this is what you guys have been doing as a result: :j2:

[Skeptic]

I predict all the marxist crap will end within 6 months from the time mommy & daddy decide to cut the purse springs.

Armed only with his powerfull intellect, his charming personality, and a batchelors degree in political history..........he'll be lucky to get a minimum wage Mcjob.

He'll have to live in the low-rent (high-crime) side of town. The local thugs will spot him a mile away and he'll probably get mugged with that "victim mentality" he has.

You won't see any more "Mr. Manifesto" posts but if you see something from "Mr. Imperialist Running Dog, War Mongering ,Gun Nut".......................you'll know who it is.

Well, I think you're being far too unkind here, but it IS true that very often, ex-marxists become gung-ho nationalists. Many early nazi party members--such as Goebbles or Freisler, for instance--were former communists.

The reason for this is not so much what you describe, but the fact that some people must belive they are MARTYRS FOR THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH(tm) and everybody else is wrong. Which absolute truth it is (communism, so-called "racialism", religious fanaticism, objectivism, shanek-style "libertarianism", etc.) is secondary.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Where, O Leif Roar, are your haughty remarks now? ;)

Frankly, I still think you're behaving more of a jerk than your critics are.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Frankly, I still think you're behaving more of a jerk than your critics are.

I presented arguments, which were answered with nothing but, 'You don't know what you're talking about,' I bit back when Skeptic started it... But I'm the jerk.

I guess it's like I said- you hold me to a higher standard. Thank you for the compliment.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I presented arguments, which were answered with nothing but, 'You don't know what you're talking about,' I bit back when Skeptic started it... But I'm the jerk.


Your first post on this thread was a boorish, tasteless and emotionally loaded question - and what argument you put forth you framed with innuendo, button-pushing, name-calling and generally jerk-like behaviour to such a degree that it completely eclipsed what worth might have been in the actual argument itself.


I guess it's like I said- you hold me to a higher standard. Thank you for the compliment.

No, I don't. I quite simply feel that you're acting worse than anyone else in this thread.

To me this matter is closed though - you don't seem to be the least bit interested in improving or actually discussing anything in a serious manner, so I will quite simply put you on ignore from now on.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Don't forget about me...

I've been holding a_u_p's, Malachi's, as well as your feet to the fire for months now...


And this is what you guys have been doing as a result: :j2:

Manifesto, Malachi & AUP......................


Anybody else getting a visual of Moe, Larry, and Curly dressed up in those "uniform of the proletariat" Chairman Mao suits?

[Skeptic]

presented arguments, which were answered with nothing but, 'You don't know what you're talking about,'

You missed the point. Your hare-brained, silly "arguments" were the best evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. There's no point to reply to them because they're based on total ignorance and a multitude of false premises about how the army (and the world) works.

To give an analogy, your arguments show about the same level of understanding of the situation as claiming "why does the US not simply use Superman to fight the Taliban instead of risking the lives of innocents?". You don't seem to realize that your "arguments" expose a view of how the army should and could work in fighting terror that is as fantastic and fictional as superman.

Since your own words and arguments instantly established (to anybody who knows anything about the subject) that you're a total ignoramous about military matters, there's no point in discussion, any more than biologists can really argume with creationists, or historians with holocaust deniers.

Of course, when we shrug our shouldiers and walk away from replying to you--like historians and biologists do when meeting deniers or creationists--you, like the creationists and deniers, see this as a "victory" and "proof" that we "cannot answer your arguments". In reality, we walk away for the same reason the historians and biologists do, namely, in amazement that someone so ignorant on a subject would venture to have such a cocksure opinion about it.

There isn't really much else we can do with you; after all, you cannot expect us to put you through basic training, or otherwise spend years educating you, until you begin to realize how ignorant you are on the subject of military matters. You don't expect scientists to spend years teaching creationists basic biology to try and cure them of their delusions about evolution, just so they could have a semi-legible opinion about it, do you?

I apologize if I hurt you tender, well-meaning feelings, "Mr. Manifesto", but I wish to clarify what is really going on here. At least I am not claming you are a murderer an a sadist, like you claim about me in your "description" of my idf career, which, to repeat, is wrong on every single point.

[Skeptic]

Hmmmm, no reply from Mr. Manifesto. Imagine my surprise.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Hmmmm, no reply from Mr. Manifesto. Imagine my surprise.

He's been "outed". The "man" who could solve the problems of world poverty,crime in the cities, and violence in the Middle East
is just an unemployed high school kid still dependant on his parents.

I'm sure he's just laying low until the thread rolls back to page 3 or 4 and hopefully not too many people will notice it.

I have no problems with constructive criticism and different opinons. This "babykiller"-"US/Israeli military doesn't give a damn"
crap turns my stomach.

[Skeptic]

He's been "outed". The "man" who could solve the problems of world poverty,crime in the cities, and violence in the Middle East
is just an unemployed high school kid still dependant on his parents.

It's interesting, though, that a man (to use the term loosely) who has no problem in claiming I am a sadistic murderer apparently cannot face the awful criticism that he's a teenager who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Really, I don't think I said much about "Mr. Manifesto" that isn't true for the vast majority of teenagers. After all, he isn't exactly the first or last teenager to be convinced he has all the answers for everything despite having no knowledge about anything. That's more or less what being a teenager IS, if I remember correctly. It's a passing stage, at least for most people.

Then again, of course, at that age, where being treated as an adult is what you most desire, being treated as what you are--a teenager--is considered the ultimate insult. If I actually DID claim he is a sadistic murderer, he would have been far less insulted, I bet.

I'm sure he's just laying low until the thread rolls back to page 3 or 4 and hopefully not too many people will notice it.

But we can always "bump" it, or link to it, and he knows it. Ah well, so much for "Mr. Manifesto"'s war of liberation for the opressed masses in this forum, I guess.

[Skeptic]

Bump (Sorry, "Mr. Manifesto")

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Don't forget about me...

I've been holding a_u_p's, Malachi's, as well as your feet to the fire for months now...


And this is what you guys have been doing as a result: :j2:

Is that what you call it? I thought I had caught some fleas from my dog.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ralph


He's been "outed". The "man" who could solve the problems of world poverty,crime in the cities, and violence in the Middle East
is just an unemployed high school kid still dependant on his parents.

I'm sure he's just laying low until the thread rolls back to page 3 or 4 and hopefully not too many people will notice it.



Even I was liberal and stupid in high school! Hopefully he'll grow up someday... :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ralph


He's been "outed". The "man" who could solve the problems of world poverty,crime in the cities, and violence in the Middle East
is just an unemployed high school kid still dependant on his parents.

I'm sure he's just laying low until the thread rolls back to page 3 or 4 and hopefully not too many people will notice it.

I have no problems with constructive criticism and different opinons. This "babykiller"-"US/Israeli military doesn't give a damn"
crap turns my stomach.

Bullsh!t. He points out, as I did, that sending in a ground attack aircraft to take out a suspected militant who wasn't even in the village was not a good idea. The whole presumption, once again, is that the lives of American soldiers, who invited themselves into the country, are more important than the lives of civilians.

When he states that he is a student, then it is time for a monster flame attack, without one reference, IIRC, to his actual point, that the tactics used the the US in Afganistan are morally wrong and repugnant. They ground troops were used, because we know that they inspected the site after the attack. Surely you would, if you had to kill a terrorist, send them in in the first place, not after the children have been blasted.

[Skeptic]

Bullsh!t. He points out, as I did, that sending in a ground attack aircraft to take out a suspected militant who wasn't even in the village was not a good idea.

...while we pointed out that the second-guessing of "what went wrong" in a military operation, from 10,000 kms away, based on a newspaper report, by a high-school student without the slightest knowledge of military matters, is less than meaningless, so whether or not he thinks it is "a good idea" or not can be safely ignored.

In this respect, his "arguments" are much like your "proofs" of what the israeli army "really did" in certain operations: made with similar ignorance, similarly based on almost zero information, it is not a surprise you reached similarly boneheaded conclusions, as anybody who actually knows anything about the subject instantly percieved.

As they say, garbage in, garbage out.

You and "Mr. Manifesto", simply put, have not the slightest idea what you're talking about. You THINK you do, but it's the same sort of confidence a five-year-old has in his future career as a superhero. It's based on utter ignorance, nothing more.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Bullsh!t. He points out, as I did, that sending in a ground attack aircraft to take out a suspected militant who wasn't even in the village was not a good idea. The whole presumption, once again, is that the lives of American soldiers, who invited themselves into the country, are more important than the lives of civilians.

When he states that he is a student, then it is time for a monster flame attack, without one reference, IIRC, to his actual point, that the tactics used the the US in Afganistan are morally wrong and repugnant. They ground troops were used, because we know that they inspected the site after the attack. Surely you would, if you had to kill a terrorist, send them in in the first place, not after the children have been blasted.

Well.....since both you & Manifesto feel the same way----I guess it must be true. Perhaps you'd care to discuss YOUR background in planning operations such as this.

How effective would a military force be if it was felt that the officers placed the lives of civilians ABOVE those of themselves.
I'd hope any decent military would put the lives of the men under his command above all others.

This whole "the military doesn't give a damn" is getting a little tiring anyway. You'd see a lot higher body count if that were really true.

You'd see a lot of problems solved with a B52s and carpet bombing if the US truly didn't give a damn.


If he was flamed----it was over the truth. He's an unemployed college student. I'm sure he would've denied it if it weren't true.........For some strange reason----he doesn't seem to be around though.


As far as flaming goes--if you're going to accuse people of "enjoying bulldozing women & children", and being cowards........................don't start whining when people recognize you for what you are.............

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]
In this respect, his "arguments" are much like your "proofs" of what the israeli army "really did" in certain operations: made with similar ignorance, similarly based on almost zero information, it is not a surprise you reached similarly boneheaded conclusions, as anybody who actually knows anything about the subject instantly percieved.

As they say, garbage in, garbage out.


Yet you can perform miracles with the same paltry amount of information, not only can you deduce exactly what happened but also what all the people involved think about various topics, damned impressive.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool

Yet you can perform miracles with the same paltry amount of information, not only can you deduce exactly what happened but also what all the people involved think about various topics, damned impressive.

He's been in the military. Mr. Manifesto has not. You see no value in the distinction as pertains to the subject at hand?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko


He's been in the military. Mr. Manifesto has not. You see no value in the distinction as pertains to the subject at hand?




I have been in the military but , funnily enough, it did not make me psychic. I cannot remote view Afghanistan...maybe remote viewing was only taught in the IDF, who knows. The old "what would you know son, you aint never been shot at" line is a croc......

besides, talk is cheap if you want to set yourself up as your very own appeal to Authority.....Maybe I'll make myself into a retired General and trump them all.

The baying mob that are trying to belittle Manifesto with this "schoolkid" stuff are just losing it. Manifesto's button pushing has them dancing, he is playing them like a cheap violin....
.

[peptoabysmal]

According to this article:

Way Off The Mark (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031222-561514,00.html)

What the eavesdroppers had no way of knowing on Dec. 6 was that Wazir was long gone. He had left his sat-phone behind, and according to Afghan security officials, a local laborer had apparently switched it on. Outside Wazir's house, nine children were shooting marbles in the dirt.

I have to wonder if the Taliban has figured out that we are tracking them by their satellite phones and have switched to a tactic of switching the phone on when it is conveniently close to civilians, especially children. It is not beyond the scope of what the Taliban are capable of, to deliberately draw fire upon children.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
According to this article:

Way Off The Mark (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031222-561514,00.html)



I have to wonder if the Taliban has figured out that we are tracking them by their satellite phones and have switched to a tactic of switching the phone on when it is conveniently close to civilians, especially children. It is not beyond the scope of what the Taliban are capable of, to deliberately draw fire upon children.

I wonder if the idea that you can just shoot at a phone and only expect to hit the owner is ludicrous. But then, what would I know, I haven't been out there bulldozing houses.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Septic
Hmmmm, no reply from Mr. Manifesto. Imagine my surprise.

Reply to what, exactly? Oh... You mean this!

You missed the point. Your hare-brained, silly "arguments" were the best evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. There's no point to reply to them because they're based on total ignorance and a multitude of false premises about how the army (and the world) works.

To give an analogy, your arguments show about the same level of understanding of the situation as claiming "why does the US not simply use Superman to fight the Taliban instead of risking the lives of innocents?". You don't seem to realize that your "arguments" expose a view of how the army should and could work in fighting terror that is as fantastic and fictional as superman.

Since your own words and arguments instantly established (to anybody who knows anything about the subject) that you're a total ignoramous about military matters, there's no point in discussion, any more than biologists can really argume with creationists, or historians with holocaust deniers.

Of course, when we shrug our shouldiers and walk away from replying to you--like historians and biologists do when meeting deniers or creationists--you, like the creationists and deniers, see this as a "victory" and "proof" that we "cannot answer your arguments". In reality, we walk away for the same reason the historians and biologists do, namely, in amazement that someone so ignorant on a subject would venture to have such a cocksure opinion about it.

There isn't really much else we can do with you; after all, you cannot expect us to put you through basic training, or otherwise spend years educating you, until you begin to realize how ignorant you are on the subject of military matters. You don't expect scientists to spend years teaching creationists basic biology to try and cure them of their delusions about evolution, just so they could have a semi-legible opinion about it, do you?

I apologize if I hurt you tender, well-meaning feelings, "Mr. Manifesto", but I wish to clarify what is really going on here. At least I am not claming you are a murderer an a sadist, like you claim about me in your "description" of my idf career, which, to repeat, is wrong on every single point.

You took took six paragraphs to say what could've been said in six words: You are talking out your butt.

Fortunately, you will find me more concise in my reply: You are talking out your butt.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

I have to wonder if the Taliban has figured out that we are tracking them by their satellite phones and have switched to a tactic of switching the phone on when it is conveniently close to civilians, especially children. It is not beyond the scope of what the Taliban are capable of, to deliberately draw fire upon children.

:roll: You mean, it didn't occur to the military that someone might not carry their phone around all the time if it's being used for targeting?

I can imagine the generals afterwards: "Oooh, those wascaway Taweban!"

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph

If he was flamed----it was over the truth. He's an unemployed college student. I'm sure he would've denied it if it weren't true.........For some strange reason----he doesn't seem to be around though.


That, or I don't care what you think my day job is. One of the two.