AC-130 Gunship Footage - Afghanistan. [Archive]

Jocko

11th December 2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Its not a F*cking video game its people being killed....you think films of people being killed are cool?

I think it's cool they can target individuals and vehicles and leave a mosque next door untouched. Or are you now endorsing carpet -bombing and indiscriminate killing?

It's also cool because you hear the approval process that goes into a strike like this over the headphones. Tell me there isn't a superhuman effort at work there to make sure only intended targets are struck.

Assuming you actually watched the video, of course.

(Edited to add: You should appreciate this, Fool. Someday this technology may be put into play during a conflict you DO approve of - though I can't imagine what that may be.)

The Fool

11th December 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by American

When they're plotting my death and everyone I love, yeah.

Wait, I hate everyone. Never mind.

Idiot...

Who are the people being killed in the Video? Were they plotting your death? Or were they just some poor schmucks caught up in someones foreign policy cockup? Wait, no need to ask eh? Just run it up the flagpole and watch the useful idiots salute.

The Fool

11th December 2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

I think it's cool they can target individuals and vehicles and leave a mosque next door untouched. Or are you now endorsing carpet -bombing and indiscriminate killing?

What proportion of the dead civilians in Afganistan were killed by your imaginary "precision" munitions?

It's also cool because you hear the approval process that goes into a strike like this over the headphones. Tell me there isn't a superhuman effort at work there to make sure only intended targets are struck.

Tell that to all the Dead civilians for which the "superhuman effort" was not superhuman enough.

Assuming you actually watched the video, of course.

You can assume I watched the video. Can I assume your entire knowledge of these matters is obtained from videos?

(Edited to add: You should appreciate this, Fool. Someday this technology may be put into play during a conflict you DO approve of - though I can't imagine what that may be.)

Please feel free to go ahead and continue to accept the nicely typed sheets of official fairytales that come with these "demo tapes" of dead people. This "smart weapon" myth is a joke...tell it to the relatives of all the dead civilians.....were they all "cleared and approved" as targets too? what a joke.

American

11th December 2003, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Idiot...

Who are the people being killed in the Video? Were they plotting your death? Or were they just some poor schmucks caught up in someones foreign policy cockup? Wait, no need to ask eh? Just run it up the flagpole and watch the useful idiots salute.

Does your job coach know you're on the computer? Is this your reward for not crapping your pants today? It's cool the mentally handicapable like to contribute, but not when they try and address these issues...

"Poor schmucks" is right. Yes, they were plotting my death. Thankfully, the people we pay to kill them completed their mission. Would you have it some other way? You wanted them to fail? Failing means dying. That means they don't come home.

Real nice, Fool. Really nice.

Jocko

11th December 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Blatant appeal to emotion. Pretty poor form, Fool. Your inflammatory and presumably rhetorical parroting of the Mr. Manifesto playbook leads me to wonder if this kind of irrationality has to do with the coriolis effect, since it seems to be so prevalant in Australians.

Jocko

11th December 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by American

Does your job coach know you're on the computer? Is this your reward for not crapping your pants today? It's cool the mentally handicapable like to contribute, but not when they try and address these issues...

"Poor schmucks" is right. Yes, they were plotting my death. Thankfully, the people we pay to kill them completed their mission. Would you have it some other way? You wanted them to fail? Failing means dying. That means they don't come home.

Real nice, Fool. Really nice.

You misunderstand the poor guy. I mean, during wartime we should have each casualty on tape, plotting to kill one or more specific people, with times, dates and means all described in detail.

Lacking this compelling evidence, every last single dead Iraqi is a poor, blameless civilain, brutally murdered by the baby-killing fascists of the the imperial USA.

Never mind any of that poor show of confirming the target and the charade of sparing a mosque. There are but lies and misdirections designed to prevent you from seeing what an evil, il monster the US is.

....I'm telling ya, it's gotta be the coriolis effect.

peptoabysmal

11th December 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Nasarius
Okay, I watched it. Was there any particular point to posting this video? Did I miss something?

I have to agree with this. Is there a story that goes with this footage somewhere? Or is the atraction merely the thrill of watching people die?

If you like what you see, go enlist.

:usa:

The Fool

11th December 2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

Blatant appeal to emotion. Pretty poor form, Fool. Your inflammatory and presumably rhetorical parroting of the Mr. Manifesto playbook leads me to wonder if this kind of irrationality has to do with the coriolis effect, since it seems to be so prevalant in Australians.

Lots of 3 syllable words there, well done....better PM a simpler version to American so he can continue to participate in the thread....

Anyway, thats enough of chewing on doofus who think snuff movies are cool for one day........ If I reply to American too often he gets over excited and his mother can't get him to go to bed.

reprise

11th December 2003, 10:24 PM

Lacking this compelling evidence, every last single dead Iraqi is a poor, blameless civilain, brutally murdered by the baby-killing fascists of the the imperial USA.

Is the US bombing Iraq from all the way over in Afghanistan now? If not, how is this comment relevant to the OP, which was about about the bombing of a target in Aghanistan?

Jocko

11th December 2003, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Lots of 3 syllable words there, well done....better PM a simpler version to American so he can continue to participate in the thread....

Anyway, thats enough of chewing on doofus who think snuff movies are cool for one day........ If I reply to American too often he gets over excited and his mother can't get him to go to bed.

Well, you've moved from irrational emotionalism to a sort of sullen temper tantrum. A lateral move, at best, Fool. No one here said they enjoyed watching "snuff" films; if you find it morally wrong to watch - and yes, perhaps even learn from - a well-documented military strike, then you were fairly warned that those of such sensitive constitutions shouldn't watch.

I didn't see American or anyone else saying, "cool, look at all the dead civilains," as you intimate.

In fact, my first thought, as posted above, was, "cool, look how they took the time to figure out what was what and who was who before opening fire, and gee whiz, that mosque next door never even got a scratch."

They got who they came for and did not indiscrimately kill. I ask again: would you prefer it had been otherwise? Pardon the false dilemma, but it's the only response to your irrational beleif that we were witnessing the extermination of next year's nobel prize candidates.

If that offends you, then I suggest the internet is far too icky a place for you to be off exploring on your own.

Edited to add: I believe the plural form is "doofi," by the way.

Jocko

11th December 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by reprise

Is the US bombing Iraq from all the way over in Afghanistan now? If not, how is this comment relevant to the OP, which was about about the bombing of a target in Aghanistan?

You are of course correct in pointing out my mind-fart. But the point of the post was to illustrate the silliness of applying civil rules of evidence during wartime operations.

The Fool

12th December 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

In fact, my first thought, as posted above, was, "cool, look how they took the time to figure out what was what and who was who before opening fire, and gee whiz, that mosque next door never even got a scratch."

Then You must imagine that Afganistan is full of untouched mosques and happy dancing civilians? In what way do you think this video is even remotely representative of what advanced western nations do when they bomb the crap out of third world countries? Do you have it in your mind that this video is what it was like?

This video is part of the "precision munitions" myth that is used to attempt to lull the public into some warped idea that this war is any different to any other in the past.. I'll say it again...If the munitions are precision guided what killed all the civilians? Influenza?
So they release a couple of nice sequences cherrypicked from the mass of carnage and the crowd at the coliseum roar with approval.The vast majority of Munitions expended at Afghanis and Iraqis were good old WW2 style dumb ol' Iron bombs....

I have also seen Videos...These videos were interviews with civilians, mostly they were just crying a lot and showing the cameras photos of thier dead wives, husbands, brothers, sisters and children. Seen any of those cool videos?

Precision munitions? yea whatever......

but it's the only response to your irrational beleif that we were witnessing the extermination of next year's nobel prize candidates.

Who were they Jocko? do you have any Idea?
American could not care less, how about you?

http://www.cursor.org/stories/mythofprecision.html
Warning: disturbing images

Ove

12th December 2003, 04:10 AM

The AC130 gunship (Puff the Magic Dragon) circles in a gently banked turn to the left whilst 3-5 miniguns POUR bullets out in a steady stream. To use the word "surgical strike" in connection with that plane is utterly stupid.

I have got nothing against the fight against Al Qauida & Co, kill the bastards fast, but stop trying to give the impression that you can wage war without killing innocents, thats practically impossible.

And only deranged people cheer over killings. Anybody doing that is closely related to the palestinians that went cheering through the streets when WTC came down.

Marc

12th December 2003, 04:46 AM

This video made the rounds online many months ago. Interesting to watch. My boss used to serve on an AC-130, he was very interested in the video.

Kodiak

12th December 2003, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Ove
The AC130 gunship (Puff the Magic Dragon) circles in a gently banked turn to the left whilst 3-5 miniguns POUR bullets out in a steady stream. To use the word "surgical strike" in connection with that plane is utterly stupid.

I have got nothing against the fight against Al Qauida & Co, kill the bastards fast, but stop trying to give the impression that you can wage war without killing innocents, thats practically impossible.

And only deranged people cheer over killings. Anybody doing that is closely related to the palestinians that went cheering through the streets when WTC came down.

"Surgical Strike" is a media and Pentagon PR term that unfortunately has been picked up by the layman. It is a relative term with some valid applications, especially in comparison with older tech.

However unintended, civilian deaths due armed military conflict will always occur. US Commanders are under standing orders to take every step possible to minimize collateral casualties in the execution of their mission(s). More cannot be done short of not fighting (Utopians: insert dream here).

True, deranged people do cheer the killing of the enemy, but there are sometimes valid reasons for their mental ill health. I offer that as an explanation, not an excuse.

I personally cheer myself, but not for the killing. I, and many servicemen and veterans, cheer the successful implementation of their expensive military hardware, the effective utilization of their training, and the accomplishment of a mission which they hope brings a closer end to the conflict and increases the safety of their fellow soldiers as well as their loved ones back home.

Troll

12th December 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

"Surgical Strike" is a media and Pentagon PR term that unfortunately has been picked up by the layman. It is a relative term with some valid applications, especially in comparison with older tech.

However unintended, civilian deaths due armed military conflict will always occur. US Commanders are under standing orders to take every step possible to minimize collateral casualties in the execution of their mission(s). More cannot be done short of not fighting (Utopians: insert dream here).

True, deranged people do cheer the killing of the enemy, but there are sometimes valid reasons for their mental ill health. I offer that as an explanation, not an excuse.

I personally cheer myself, but not for the killing. I, and many servicemen and veterans, cheer the successful implementation of their expensive military hardware, the effective utilization of their training, and the accomplishment of a mission which they hope brings a closer end to the conflict and increases the safety of their fellow soldiers as well as their loved ones back home.

Totally agree with everything you said.

But there are a few deaths I do cheer about and will cheer about. I'd rather see Saddam and Bin Laden captured alive, but if they die and we prove it, I'll be freaking happy. And anytime a suicide bomber blows himself up without taking anyone with him makes me chuckle, much like I would chuckle if a rapist was chasing down a victim and got hit by a bus.

I wouldn't consider myself an ill person or overly sadistic. Just a lover of poetic justice.

Kodiak

12th December 2003, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Troll
But there are a few deaths I do cheer about and will cheer about. I'd rather see Saddam and Bin Laden captured alive, but if they die and we prove it, I'll be freaking happy. And anytime a suicide bomber blows himself up without taking anyone with him makes me chuckle, much like I would chuckle if a rapist was chasing down a victim and got hit by a bus.

I wouldn't consider myself an ill person or overly sadistic. Just a lover of poetic justice.

But you aren't really cheering the actual killing, I think. Like you said: "poetic justice". You're cheering the ending of evil in your first example, the costly failure of a fanatic in your second example, and "divine justice" in your third example. They are fine distinctions, but important ones.

Troll

12th December 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

But you aren't really cheering the actual killing, I think. Like you said: "poetic justice". You're cheering the ending of a evil in your first example, the costly failure of a fanatic in your second example, and "divine justice" in your third example. They are fine distinctions, but important ones.

True. I just wanted The Fool to be able to distinguish the difference ahead of time in case I come on here in a good mood about any of those examples occuring;)

Your post was spot on. I think The Fool mistakes someone being in awe of the intricacies of the equipment and how a team works, and the effort expended to avoid unintended targets from being hit, with jubilation of a death.

rikzilla

12th December 2003, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Its not a F*cking video game its people being killed....you think films of people being killed are cool?

The "people" in that video were not civilians. This AC130 flick is not new,..the mission represented there was a well documented success in that this was not a wedding party...nor a nursery,...nor some overly stupid liberals being used as shields. These were actual nasties. You cannot spin reality. It is actually very cool that these animals are dead. I only wish that more Al Qaida and Taliban had been there to play target for the AC130's gunners.

Is that a bit harsh? No, it's reality Fool. They thought nothing of murdering over 3,000 people...people who were civilians. They targeted them on purpose. They were scum..I am happy that they are dead. I'll be happier when more of them are dead.

Sadly, civilians will die in future operations because that cannot be helped in war. We didn't start this war, but I am happy that we have a man in the White House who will finish it.

-z

Doubt

12th December 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

The vast majority of Munitions expended at Afghanis and Iraqis were good old WW2 style dumb ol' Iron bombs....

Not true. In fact, not even close:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020902-dod1.htm

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution September 2, 2002

More than 60 percent of the 13,000 bombs dropped in Afghanistan were smart weapons. During the Gulf War, precision munitions made up only 3 percent of the total.

And for Iraq round two:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/jdam-history.htm

By mid-December 2001 the first nine weeks of air strikes over Afghanistan had consumed about half the roughly 10,000 JDAM kits in inventory. During Operation Enduring Freedom about 10,000 of the 18,000 munitions expended were precision-guided, of which about half were GPS guided.

However, there is nothing precision guided about and AC-130. But I don’t see anyone claiming that it is a precision guided weapon.

It is becoming more cost effective to use the precision guided weapons rather than the old dumb bombs. But civilians will still get killed because of malfunctions and poor target selection. Saturation bombing was not used in Afghanistan or the most recent war in Iraq. The smart bombs are changing things for the better. But war is still a messy business.

c0rbin

12th December 2003, 06:58 AM

Sadly, civilians will die in future operations because that cannot be helped in war. We didn't start this war, but I am happy that we have a man in the White House who will finish it.

It would be convenient for all if these cowards didn't hide in villages.

Mr Manifesto

12th December 2003, 07:35 AM

Mr Manifesto

12th December 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by c0rbin

It would be convenient for all if these cowards didn't hide in villages.

Honestly- the American army outnumbers the Afghani insurgents in every way imaginiable, and you expect them to follow the 'conventional' tactics of warfare? Do you expect them to basically walk out in the open so they can die for no reason?

There was another group of soldiers referred to as 'cowards' during the Vietnam war.

Not to mention the cowardly English for using longbows against the French in Agincourt.

Jocko

12th December 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Who were they Jocko? do you have any Idea?
American could not care less, how about you?

Save your bleeding heart propaganda for someone with a double-digit IQ, Fool. You claim to be so inured to ours, and now I see why... they got to you first. :D

Jocko

12th December 2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

He just likes the sound of his own voice. Let him go.

Ah, so nice to see I'm making the right enemies. See ya, Mr. M, and I'll pass you a note in Social Studies. Busy for recess? :D

Edited to add: You may notice I immediately owned up to my minor but embarrassing slip of mind. That, sadly, is something they don't teach in middle school.

Mr Manifesto

12th December 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

Ah, so nice to see I'm making the right enemies. See ya, Mr. M, and I'll pass you a note in Social Studies. Busy for recess? :D

Edited to add: You may notice I immediately owned up to my minor but embarrassing slip of mind. That, sadly, is something they don't teach in middle school.

How do you know?

Kodiak

12th December 2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Honestly- the American army outnumbers the Afghani insurgents in every way imaginiable, and you expect them to follow the 'conventional' tactics of warfare? Do you expect them to basically walk out in the open so they can die for no reason?

No. If the Taliban rebels are going to hide among the civilian population, I expect them and their supporters (like yourself) to not blame the loss of innocents on the incompetence of U.S.-led coalition forces.

Mr Manifesto

12th December 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

No. If the Taliban rebels are going to hide among the civilian population, I expect them and their supporters (like yourself) to not blame the loss of innocents on the incompetence of U.S.-led coalition forces.

Expect away. The Afghani civilians don't -and never will- share your sentiments. Maybe the US military could adapt to address this new phenomena in warfare? After all, that's what war is about- adapt to meet the changes in strategy that your enemy makes.

Might be a bit of a concept for you, though.

Kodiak

12th December 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Expect away. The Afghani civilians don't -and never will- share your sentiments. Maybe the US military could adapt to address this new phenomena in warfare? After all, that's what war is about- adapt to meet the changes in strategy that your enemy makes.

Might be a bit of a concept for you, though.

"New phenomena"?? Do you have a split personality?!?

Are you telling me you don't remember just posting this:
"There was another group of soldiers referred to as 'cowards' during the Vietnam war."

I've forgotten more about military tactics and strategy from the theater level all the way down to squad and fire team size, than you could ever hope to learn.

Unfortunately, I can't dress to down in public by routing you in war-game scenarios like you deserve.

Instead I'll try this: Why don't you stop being a Taliban propagandist and present the military tactics you would imploy against the Afghani rebels if you were in command of the coalition forces currently in Afghanistan.

I dare ya...

WildCat

12th December 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Its not a F*cking video game its people being killed....you think films of people being killed are cool?
Did you watch the video? Did you see how careful they were to be sure of their targets and the calm manner in which they proceeded to destroy those targets? These were not innocent civilians in that video. These were also the same folks who supported and offered refuge to the animals responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Rest assured, they did cheer at the deaths of innocent civilians there. Believe it or not, they were not under the impression that the WTC was a military target. There is a fundamental diference in the morality of intentionally killing a civilian and accidentally killing one. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

The folks in that video picked this war, I don't have any sympathy for them now that they crap their pants every time they hear an airplane.

WildCat

12th December 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Instead I'll try this: Why don't you stop being an Taliban propagandist and present the military tactics you would imploy against the Afghani rebels if you were in command of the coalition forces currently in Afghanistan.

I dare ya...
Somehow I don't think I'll win the $1 million prize by predicting that The Fool won't have an answer to that question...

c0rbin

12th December 2003, 10:00 AM

Honestly- the American army outnumbers the Afghani insurgents in every way imaginiable,

Best situation to prosecute a war.

and you expect them to follow the 'conventional' tactics of warfare?

Which are what exactly? I don't expect anyone to take a bullet willingly, but I would expect to get shot at in a gun fight.

Would you kick an angry bull in the face and then go stand behind your grandparents?

Do you expect them to basically walk out in the open so they can die for no reason?

I thought they had a reason to die? It is my understanding (having not served myself) that a warrior assumes the possibility of death for his/her cause.

A warrior who hides among non-combatants must not have an earnest belief in his/her cause.

There was another group of soldiers referred to as 'cowards' during the Vietnam war.

A good army will learn how to engage such a foe.

Not to mention the cowardly English for using longbows against the French in Agincourt.

The French had the balls to ride out and meet their enemy.

Tell me, what language do they speak in Normandy?

demon

12th December 2003, 10:03 AM

Ah, the great carrion eaters from the JREF never miss a chance to cheer death and destruction from the sidelines so long as it`s far, far away. What`s new about that?
Hope you will be so philosophical about it all when it reaches your shores again or will we be treated to the "those natives don`t play fair" whining again?
Way to go boys!

Luke T.

12th December 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by demon
Ah, the great carrion eaters from the JREF never miss a chance to cheer death and destruction from the sidelines so long as it`s far, far away. What`s new about that?

Okay. I hope you don't mind if this retired military man who wasn't on the sidelines cheers.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy!

Hope you will be so philosophical about it all when it reaches your shores again or will we be treated to the "those natives don`t play fair" whining again?
Way to go boys!

When it reaches our shores again. I see. We "deserved" to have the WTC blown up. Are you with Juggler in cheering from the sidelines over that?

Luke T.

12th December 2003, 10:24 AM

Did anyone else notice that when one of the running figures ran into the mosque, they mentioned it aloud and stopped trying to nail him?

hgc

12th December 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Did anyone else notice that when one of the running figures ran into the mosque, they mentioned it aloud and stopped trying to nail him? Allah protected him.

editorial note: I am appalled at the disgusting glee with which this snuff film is viewed by some here, but could not resist making the above joke.

Kodiak

12th December 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by demon
Ah, the great carrion eaters from the JREF never miss a chance to cheer death and destruction from the sidelines so long as it`s far, far away. What`s new about that?
Hope you will be so philosophical about it all when it reaches your shores again or will we be treated to the "those natives don`t play fair" whining again?
Way to go boys!

Ladies and Gentlemen...

Fearful of losing their place of prominence on the world stage, you see before you the increasingly brazen Haughtius Europeanus Rex.

demon

12th December 2003, 10:35 AM

"Are you with Juggler in cheering from the sidelines over that?"

I don`t cheer any death.
Is that anathama to you being military man?
If it`s war though then anything is allowed. Quit sqwaking when the natives hit back.

"When it reaches our shores again. I see. We "deserved" to have the WTC blown up."

I didn`t say you deserved it. That`s the sort of one dimensional thinking I expext from a military guy though. Makes the world neat and tidy if you brand anyone who tells you not to be a hypocrit as supporting those who brought the WTC down.
Just another less than challenging rendition of the "if you`re not with us you`re against us", *****.

Kodiak

12th December 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by hgc

editorial note: I am appalled at the disgusting glee with which this snuff film is viewed by some here, but could not resist making the above joke.

reader response: which thread participant has expressed "glee" after watching the footage?

hgc

12th December 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

reader response: which thread participant has expressed "glee" after watching the footage? Wildcat, American and Jocko.

Skeptic

12th December 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Its not a F*cking video game its people being killed....you think films of people being killed are cool?

Certainly, when we're talking about Al-Qu'eda terrorists and their Taliban sympathisers. I'd say killing evil people who want you dead is certainly cool. It's no more "uncool" than, for example, filming the June 6th, 1944 landing, say, despite the fact that the poor, misunderstood Waffen-SS soldiers are shown getting killed.

It's also "cool" because it shows that, far from the "indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians" the US is accused of by the useful idiots, it knows very well what it is doing, and tries to hit its targets with a minimum of damage to others. It's quite "cool" to see to what degree military technology has evolved in this respect. (Of course, the US doesn't always succeed in this goal, but certainly succeeds in it far better than any other nation.)

Kodiak

12th December 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by hgc
Wildcat, American and Jocko.

I disagree, but maybe it's a matter of interpretation...

I've reread their posts, and the closest any of them come to "glee" is by using the word "cool".

Luke T.

12th December 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by demon
"Are you with Juggler in cheering from the sidelines over that?"

I don`t cheer any death.
Is that anathama to you being military man?
If it`s war though then anything is allowed. Quit sqwaking when the natives hit back.

Maybe one day you will finally get it that we are the ones hitting back. By not hitting back sooner, we encouraged more of the same, and 9/11 was the result. 9/11 was a deliberate targeting of civilians. Figure it out who the real bad guys are.

And, by the looks of the video, those bastards who were in line to carry out another attack are dead. Excuse me if that gives me a sense of relief.

hgc

12th December 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

I disagree, but maybe it's a matter of interpretation...

I've reread their posts, and the closest any of them come to "glee" is by using the word "cool". Yes, that's what I was referring to. I did equate "[ain't it] cool" with "glee." I trust that my meaning is now clear.

rikzilla

12th December 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by WildCat

Somehow I don't think I'll win the $1 million prize by predicting that The Fool won't have an answer to that question...

Yeah he would,...but his answer would involve the widespread use of a new weapon by the US military...the white flag.

For guys like Fool and Thanz cowardice is a virtue, doing nothing is known as "the right thing", and the military are always evil. These guys ought not to be giving advice on foreign affairs,...they should take holy orders.

I, OTOH, am not angling for sainthood. I know the world is a very dangerous place, and that these new enemies of ours cannot even be easily found, much less reasoned with. We must flush them out of their caves and huts and kill them...yes, even if it means killing those who live with them. War is hell, and once a nation has comitted itself to war the only acceptable result is victory. You don't go into war half-hearted. That's the recipe for defeat.

One need only look to history.

[gratuitous history lesson]
From William the Bastard, to Edward I, 8 English kings had spent over 200 years and much blood and treasure to conquer Wales. Their efforts were always thwarted by the Welsh who took to the mountains, avoided pitched battles, and struck at night, harrassing and starving out the English invaders. The Norman kings had many reasons why they failed to subdue the Welsh. It was expensive, the weather and terrain were treacherous, their supply lines were stretched.. but mostly it was royal will...the English kings usually lacked the will to place Welsh subjugation at the top of their list.

When Edward I finally became enraged enough to bring the full might of the crown down upon the rebellious princes of Wales he didn't spare any expense. When he won ground he built massive castles to control the area. He hired mercenaries and kept up the pressure until he had killed Prince Llywelln, and captured Prince Dayvid....he then had Davyid dragged through Shrewsbury and hung, then cut down and while still alive disemboweled, and his intestines burned...then he was quartered.
[/gratuitous history lesson]

That, ugly as it is, is how one wins a war and pacifies a populace. It's called total war, and it's the reason nations should avoid war if at all possible.

-z

Kodiak

12th December 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by hgc
Yes, that's what I was referring to. I did equate "[ain't it] cool" with "glee." I trust that my meaning is now clear.

cool (adj) 1. slang: very good

glee (noun) 1. joy, hilarity

WildCat

12th December 2003, 10:55 AM

Actually, when I first said it was "cool" I was speculating as to why Lavie Enrose posted it in the first place. But since Lavie hasn't posted here since we can still only speculate.

I don't take glee over the deaths, but I don't have any pity for them either. But it is cool to see how the AC-130U crew handles themselves in combat, and also to see how effective this tool of war can be. It's no different than watching gun camera footage from WWII. Hasn't everyone here saw those old "World at War" TV shows?

hgc

12th December 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

cool (adj) 1. slang: very good

glee (noun) 1. joy, hilarity I don't think this is in dispute. I explained that I equated them, understand that others may not make that interpretation, and I trust you know that context of usage has a lot to add to the dictionary definitions for words, when interpreting meaning.Originally posted by Kodiak
Actually, when I first said it was "cool" I was speculating as to why Lavie Enrose posted it in the first place. But since Lavie hasn't posted here since we can still only speculate.

I don't take glee over the deaths, but I don't have any pity for them either. But it is cool to see how the AC-130U crew handles themselves in combat, and also to see how effective this tool of war can be. It's no different than watching gun camera footage from WWII. Hasn't everyone here saw those old "World at War" TV shows?If understand what you are saying. I withdraw the charge.

I am also glad that we are able to bring this technology and training to bear on the situation.

Skeptic

12th December 2003, 11:14 AM

Larspeart

12th December 2003, 12:12 PM

War is Hell.

demon

12th December 2003, 12:33 PM

"Maybe one day you will finally get it that we are the ones hitting back. By not hitting back sooner, we encouraged more of the same, and 9/11 was the result. 9/11 was a deliberate targeting of civilians. Figure it out who the real bad guys are."

"Figure it out who the real bad guys are", eh? Priceless.

If you and the rest of the carrion eaters "really" believe that the hypocrisy and deceit that led you to commit your own 9/11`s many times over in Afghanistan and Iraq is justifiable then there`s really nothing else to say.
To dismiss and omit present foreign policy or foreign policy history and Western complicity in creating these so called "terrorist" movements is criminally audacious on your part.
Turning a blind eye and pretending you are the benign paragons of virtue when dealing with those dark skinned natives will get your ass bitten again and again. Can`t you learn from what happened?
We just come from two totally different moral worlds.

Doubt

12th December 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin

I thought they had a reason to die? It is my understanding (having not served myself) that a warrior assumes the possibility of death for his/her cause.

Those who believe the Islamic martyr rhetoric do have reason to die. The also want the civilians they hide behind to die as well. That way they all get to heaven while gaining sympathy from people like Mr. Manifesto. Mr. M. falls for it hook, line, and sinker. Look at his posts here and notice how the civilian deaths are just a military tactic for the Taliban but are an atrocity by the west.

For a balanced view of civilian casualties in war:

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood121203.html

International law requires military forces to protect civilians. But it also allows civilians to be put at risk if there is an overriding military necessity and reasonable or "proportionate" amounts of force are used.

* snip *

"Going to war is the easiest part -- and in pre-emptive wars like these, in the jingoistic speeches and rah-rah enthusiasm, there is never any acknowledgment of the raw and horrible truths of war -- like dead little children," said retired Marine Lt.Col. Gary Solis, a combat officer, historian and author of books on war crimes and international law.

The moral weight of responsibility for these deaths "is a serious and an open question," said Joel Rosenthal, president of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, a New York research group.

"My own view is that the war on terror is just, but it is going to cost us, morally. We are going to take innocent life. But I think our moral self-righteousness, our moral certainty, sometimes blinds us to a full reckoning of the costs," Rosenthal said.

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 12:36 PM

Stupid people are really good at war.

demon

12th December 2003, 12:49 PM

"Look at his posts here and notice how the civilian deaths are just a military tactic for the Taliban but are an atrocity by the west."

When did the Taliban become atrocity mongers in your mind Doubt?
Before or after Bush and Rumsfeld told you they were? Before or after the US doled out 43 million dollars to them in 2001 etc etc etc?

The Fool

12th December 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Yeah he would,...but his answer would involve the widespread use of a new weapon by the US military...the white flag.

really rick, do you have to try hard to reach this level of lack O undertandin'? I'll give you a word of advice, how about not installing these terrorists in the first place...but then who would you have to bomb eh?

For guys like Fool and Thanz cowardice is a virtue, doing nothing is known as "the right thing", and the military are always evil. These guys ought not to be giving advice on foreign affairs,...they should take holy orders.

Holy orders? ok rick...god is with you in this war? Is that the angle? Channeling Jedi Knight again rick?

I, OTOH, am not angling for sainthood. I know the world is a very dangerous place, and that these new enemies of ours cannot even be easily found, much less reasoned with. We must flush them out of their caves and huts and kill them...yes, even if it means killing those who live with them. War is hell, and once a nation has comitted itself to war the only acceptable result is victory. You don't go into war half-hearted. That's the recipe for defeat.

One need only look to history.

Speaking of history, how about september 11 (1973 not 2001). By your reasoning Chile should be able to bomb those responsible? And if they were to bomb the terrorists hiding in the country that created and trained them (America) then dead american civilians would just be "killing those that live with them"..... Thats the trouble when you talk garbage rick, your hypocrisy bites you on the arse.

[gratuitous history lesson]
From William the Bastard, to Edward I, 8 English kings had spent over 200 years and much blood and treasure to conquer Wales. Their efforts were always thwarted by the Welsh who took to the mountains, avoided pitched battles, and struck at night, harrassing and starving out the English invaders. The Norman kings had many reasons why they failed to subdue the Welsh. It was expensive, the weather and terrain were treacherous, their supply lines were stretched.. but mostly it was royal will...the English kings usually lacked the will to place Welsh subjugation at the top of their list.

When Edward I finally became enraged enough to bring the full might of the crown down upon the rebellious princes of Wales he didn't spare any expense. When he won ground he built massive castles to control the area. He hired mercenaries and kept up the pressure until he had killed Prince Llywelln, and captured Prince Dayvid....he then had Davyid dragged through Shrewsbury and hung, then cut down and while still alive disemboweled, and his intestines burned...then he was quartered.
[/gratuitous history lesson]

That, ugly as it is, is how one wins a war and pacifies a populace. It's called total war, and it's the reason nations should avoid war if at all possible.

-z
Unless, of course, there is a second term to be secured. So lets get out the list of tinpot governments we've installed and pick one to bomb the crap out of.

Doubt

12th December 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by demon

I didn`t say you deserved it. That`s the sort of one dimensional thinking I expext from a military guy though.

That is just the sort of thinking I would expect from someone who has a one dimensional view of people in the military. You want to paint us all in with the same brush while pretending that your own view of the world is complex.

Yes, the west does have some responsibly for creating the situations that lead to terrorism. But in the end, the person who chooses terror is responsible for their own decisions. Nobody forced the Taliban to support Osama. Politics and current events are not like Newton’s laws of motion. Every action does not have an equal and opposite reaction. Every action does lead to optional courses of action.

If you and the rest of the carrion eaters "really" believe that the hypocrisy and deceit that led you to commit your own 9/11`s many times over in Afghanistan and Iraq is justifiable then there`s really nothing else to say.

What has happened in Afghanistan is hardly the equivalent of 9/11. The country is a war zone and has been for decades now. Those who live there know they are at risk and still many of them choose to live next to weapons stockpiles or around terrorist leaders. Those that do so, with the exception of the children, carry a great deal of responsibility for their own deaths.

rikzilla

12th December 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Speaking of history, how about september 11 (1973 not 2001). By your reasoning Chile should be able to bomb those responsible? And if they were to bomb the terrorists hiding in the country that created and trained them (America) then dead american civilians would just be "killing those that live with them"..... Thats the trouble when you talk garbage rick, your hypocrisy bites you on the arse.

Fool,

How 'bout we just sit back and wait for the Chilean leftists to come bomb us and those we live with. Tell you what, when it happens I'll admit that it's bitten me in the arse. (crickets churp)

Personally I find that I have no tears for dead commies in Chile. The fact that enemies of the USA have succeeded in attaining room temperature in signifigant numbers throughout history should give the terrorists a reason to find someone else to F with
but if it doesn't, don't expect me to shed a tear for them...I'll leave that to you St. Fool.

-z

Doubt

12th December 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by demon
When did the Taliban become atrocity mongers in your mind Doubt?
Before or after Bush and Rumsfeld told you they were? Before or after the US doled out 43 million dollars to them in 2001 etc etc etc?

This is the second issue you have tangled with me and the second time you made yourself look like a chump, demon.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html

Drawing on work by Bryan Carnell of Leftwatch, Brendan pointed out that the $43 million was not aid to the Taliban government. Instead, the money was a gift of wheat, food commodities, and food security programs distributed to the Afghan people by agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Secretary of State Colin Powell specifically stated, in fact, that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

Just in case you think that this came from some right wing pro government source:

http://www.spinsanity.org/about/

About the editors
Full disclosure: We all have been politically active in Democratic and progressive politics and disclose those affiliations below. We have strong personal views on politics and believe in participating in the political system, but we also share a commitment to the democratic values that motivate this site. Our pledge to our readers is that we will always be non-partisan, fair and civic-minded.

And to answer your empty rhetorical question:

I knew the Taliban were thugs when it hit the news that they were harboring Osama. Not sure what year that was, but even Clinton launched military strikes against Afghanistan before Bush and friends were “supporting” the Taliban.

Doubt

12th December 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Stupid people are really good at war.

Then I guess Sun Tzu, Gen. George Marshall and Hannibal were complete morons!

Larspeart

12th December 2003, 01:19 PM

When did the Taliban become atrocity mongers in your mind Doubt?
Before or after Bush and Rumsfeld told you they were? Before or after the US doled out 43 million dollars to them in 2001 etc etc etc? [/B][/QUOTE]

When I watched them blow up the huge Buddha's.

When I learned (in '99, pre-bush) that they banned women from school's, conducted mass executions in converted soccer stadiums, outlawed all forms of free speech (which you seem to keen to use and love), banned voting, and destroyed what was left of one of the most beautiful cities in central asia.

That is where I 'kinda' got the notion that they were 'bad men'.

I notice you put both the UK and the US as your location. What's the matter? Too fickly to just pick one? I'll bet it is more-likely that you tend to ride the 'tide of international opinion' thus allowing you to stay as blameless as possible.

Skeptic

12th December 2003, 01:28 PM

Stupid people are really good at war.

That's been Europe's rationalization for the last 100 years or so, hasn't it?

"We're NOT surrendering to Hitler! We're just SMARTER than you!"

"We're NOT surrendering in Algeria! We're just SMARTER than you!"

"We're NOT kissing the USSR's ass and asking you to protect us from the consequences! We're just SMARTER than you!"

"We're NOT surrendering in the war on terror! We're just SMARTER than you!"

The Fool

12th December 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Fool,

How 'bout we just sit back and wait for the Chilean leftists to come bomb us and those we live with. Tell you what, when it happens I'll admit that it's bitten me in the arse. (crickets churp)

Personally I find that I have no tears for dead commies in Chile. The fact that enemies of the USA have succeeded in attaining room temperature in signifigant numbers throughout history should give the terrorists a reason to find someone else to F with
but if it doesn't, don't expect me to shed a tear for them...I'll leave that to you St. Fool.

-z
They can't bomb you rick, the terrorists you trained and funded overthrew them after they were democratically elected...ooops. You still harbour and protect these terrorists today rick, they "hide behind civilians" in America....story starting to sound familiar rick? got a bit of an afganistan smell to it?Starting to dawn on you yet? But as you say, killing people doesn't worry you.... Its useful idiots like you that are absolutely needed by America at the moment, keep up the good work.

demon

12th December 2003, 01:30 PM

demon

12th December 2003, 01:46 PM

"I notice you put both the UK and the US as your location. What's the matter? Too fickly to just pick one? I'll bet it is more-likely that you tend to ride the 'tide of international opinion' thus allowing you to stay as blameless as possible."

Nothing fickly about it. I have employment in both countries on a relatively equal basis.

"you tend to ride the 'tide of international opinion' ", oh the tide of international opinion? You mean I might have been sympathetic with what the UN and most of the world`s people wanted in regards to invading Middle Eastern countries?

I know this might sound a bit weird to you bud, but being in sympathy with what most of the world`s people want is being in tune with democracy. I have respect for democracy.
If you miss that point then I wouldn`t try "tangling" with anyone.

Tony

12th December 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by demon
I know this might sound a bit weird to you bud, but being in sympathy with what most of the world`s people want is being in tune with democracy. I have respect for democracy.
If you miss that point then I wouldn`t try "tangling" with anyone.

Actually no, being in sympathy with what most of the world's people want is not thinking for yourself. What you are talking about is not democracy, it is collectivism.

Richard G

12th December 2003, 01:54 PM

Its not a F*cking video game its people being killed....you think films of people being killed are cool?

Video of my enemies being evaporated are cool. I would pay per view.

demon

12th December 2003, 01:57 PM

"Actually no, being in sympathy with what most of the world's people want is not thinking for yourself."

How do you know that?
Are you inferring that being in sympathy with a bunch of ultra right wing ex oil men and women is thinking for yourself? You tell me.

Tony

12th December 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by demon

How do you know that?

Gee, if you believe something because everyone else does, I'd say you aren't thinking for yourself.

Are you inferring that being in sympathy with a bunch of ultra right wing ex oil men and women is thinking for yourself?

No, why even bring this up?

demon

12th December 2003, 02:10 PM

"Gee, if you believe something because everyone else does, I'd say you aren't thinking for yourself."

I didnt say I believed something because everyone else does.
After all the s**t that passed for evidence and all the twisted rhetoric that passed for justification for an Iraq invasion, I came to my own conclusion.
Don`t balme me if the rest of the world came to the same conclusion too;)

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Doubt

Then I guess Sun Tzu, Gen. George Marshall and Hannibal were complete morons!

They were at least partially stupid in some ways to engage in war. Unwise. One-dimensional. Short term thinkers. Etc.

Sorry, I guess the world is equally as important to me as country. I'd like to have a nice world for my future kid's kid's kids to inherit.

Keep in mind that when I criticize war, I'm not just doing it for the US military, but militaries everywhere.

Other things the militaries do are grand- but war ain't one of em'.

Luke T.

12th December 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Larspeart
When did the Taliban become atrocity mongers in your mind Doubt?
Before or after Bush and Rumsfeld told you they were? Before or after the US doled out 43 million dollars to them in 2001 etc etc etc?

When I watched them blow up the huge Buddha's.

When I learned (in '99, pre-bush) that they banned women from school's, conducted mass executions in converted soccer stadiums, outlawed all forms of free speech (which you seem to keen to use and love), banned voting, and destroyed what was left of one of the most beautiful cities in central asia.

That is where I 'kinda' got the notion that they were 'bad men'.

I notice you put both the UK and the US as your location. What's the matter? Too fickly to just pick one? I'll bet it is more-likely that you tend to ride the 'tide of international opinion' thus allowing you to stay as blameless as possible.

Let's not forget the Christian missionaries who were imprisoned by the Taliban for proselytizing who were all over the news prior to 9/11.

demon

12th December 2003, 03:27 PM

"Then I guess Sun Tzu, Gen. George Marshall and Hannibal were complete morons! "

Jeez, we are still in the presence again of military masturbators who cite Sun Tzu and Hannibal! Kodiak`s the worse for this crap. Give him a sniff of Alexander the Great or Hannibal and he goes all fuzzy.
If you guys ever stop reading the "Big Book of Generals" and actually apply yourself to some serious and detailed study of military campaigns and their results, you might undestand why some of us think war, killing, exploitation and cheering about it all stinks.

hammegk

12th December 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by demon
....some of us think war, killing, exploitation and cheering about it all stinks.

Who doesn't? The point is what would you have done differently then and what would you do now?

Talk is cheap, and no Monday-morning quarterback actually won yesterday's game.

Troll

12th December 2003, 04:10 PM

Jocko

12th December 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by hgc
Wildcat, American and Jocko.

I take serious exception to your accusation, and expect an immediate apology, hgc. I even clarified my admiration at the restraint of the pilots and crews.

It was a wartime operation targeting enemy combatants, carefully avoiding collateral damage and civilian casualties. The technology driving it is incredible - "cool" in the parlance.

If that's glee to you, you live in a gleeless world. All the same, I expect amends to be made ASAP.

Jocko

12th December 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by hgc
I don't think this is in dispute. I explained that I equated them, understand that others may not make that interpretation, and I trust you know that context of usage has a lot to add to the dictionary definitions for words, when interpreting meaning.If understand what you are saying. I withdraw the charge.

I am also glad that we are able to bring this technology and training to bear on the situation.

Half-assed apology accepted.

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Troll

And before you get your panties in a bunch and start freaking on this war, I'm refering to you and T'ai Chi and your views of wars somehow all being avoidable. They're not.

I didn't say they were all avoidable. But they should be, and so should the killing aspect of it.

The results of many military campaigns, since you asked, has led to the freedom from oppression, slavery, genocide and basic human rights for many. That's as much a part of war as the stuff you abhor about it. Are you against those as well?

Nope. I've already acknowledged that military does good stuff.

Troll

12th December 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I didn't say they were all avoidable. But they should be, and so should the killing aspect of it.

Nope. I've already acknowledged that military does good stuff. [/B]

Yes I saw you say they do good stuff, but you said :

"Other things the militaries do are grand- but war ain't one of em'."

I gave examples of what military campaigns and wars have done that were for the betterment of mankind and to agree with them and yet make that statement is rather confusing.

American

12th December 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Who are the people being killed in the Video? Were they plotting your death? Or were they just some poor schmucks caught up in someones foreign policy cockup?

We lost 3000 "poor schmucks caught up in someones foreign policy cockup". The now-dead people in the video (getting what they begged us for) were cheering and praising Allah on that day.

demon

12th December 2003, 05:42 PM

hammegk, you are right, talk is very, very cheap.
But, you got to admit, you reap what you sow.
We have some individuals here who think that what happened on 9/11 kinda decloaked out of a thin grey ether...like it just happened.
I know you know better than that.

Ok, if you want to remain lofty and morally superior then that`s your perogative but don`t ever expect the rest of us to think that`s any justification for going after the terrorists in the way the US did.
That begs the question of course, that you were going after terrorists anyway and not something else.

Doubt

12th December 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

They were at least partially stupid in some ways to engage in war. Unwise. One-dimensional. Short term thinkers. Etc.

Sorry, I guess the world is equally as important to me as country. I'd like to have a nice world for my future kid's kid's kids to inherit.

Keep in mind that when I criticize war, I'm not just doing it for the US military, but militaries everywhere.

Other things the militaries do are grand- but war ain't one of em'.

In case you had not noticed, none of these men are known to have started a war. So if attacked, we should not have soliders like them to defend ourselves?

Correction: Hanibal did start the second Punic war. But:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ROME/PUNICWAR.HTM

A few years later, however, in 221 BC, a young man, only twenty-five years old, assumed command over Carthaginian Spain: Hannibal. At first, Hannibal gave the Saguntines wide berth for he wished to avoid coming into conflict with Rome. But the Saguntines were flush with confidence in their new alliance and began playing politics with other Spanish cities. Hannibal, despite direct threats from Rome, attacked Saguntum and conquered it.

The Romans attempted to solve the problem with diplomacy and demand that Carthage dismiss Hannibal and send him to Rome. When Carthage refused, the second Punic War began in 218 BC. Rome, however, was facing a formidable opponent; in the years following the first Punic War, Carthage had created a powerful empire in Spain with a terrifyingly large army. Hannibal marched that terrible army out of Spain and across Europe and, in September of 218, he crossed the Alps with his army and entered Italy on a war of invasion. Although his army was tired from the journey, he literally smashed the Roman armies he encountered in northern Italy. Within two months, he had conquered the whole of northern Italy, with the exception of two cities. These spectacular victories brought a horde of Gauls from the north to help him, fifty thousand or more; his victory over Rome, as he saw it, would be guaranteed if he could convince Roman allies and subject cities to join Carthage.

Doubt

12th December 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by demon
"Then I guess Sun Tzu, Gen. George Marshall and Hannibal were complete morons! "

Jeez, we are still in the presence again of military masturbators who cite Sun Tzu and Hannibal! Kodiak`s the worse for this crap. Give him a sniff of Alexander the Great or Hannibal and he goes all fuzzy.
If you guys ever stop reading the "Big Book of Generals" and actually apply yourself to some serious and detailed study of military campaigns and their results, you might undestand why some of us think war, killing, exploitation and cheering about it all stinks.

It is pretty apparent that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. The failure to level any criticism to those three military leaders is just one display of your ignorance.

Sun Tzu’s art of war is one of the first textbooks on strategy. It includes the general advice to make sure that the results of a battle are determined before the attack if possible, rather than running into the battle and guessing. Modern generals and politicians often don’t follow this advice. See Iraq for a prime example.

George Marshall is mostly famous for a little thing he came up with after WWII called the Marshall plan. Must have been a real idiot for doing that! I guess that whole industrial strategy the US used in WWII must have come from “Warfare for Dummies”.

Hannibal. Cannae. Double envelopment. Enough said.

I have spent a good chunk of my free time over the last 20 years reading about military operations and their results. I have been in Germany, Korea and China. I have visited fortresses and battlefields whenever I had the chance. You have yet to cite anything to back your opinions and have not displayed any in depth knowledge of what or how armies do what they do. You have also gotten your facts wrong when you tried to claim that the US supported the Taliban. Can you get anything right? To bad Jedi Knight is not here. You two deserved each other.

RussDill

12th December 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by American

Does your job coach know you're on the computer? Is this your reward for not crapping your pants today? It's cool the mentally handicapable like to contribute, but not when they try and address these issues...

"Poor schmucks" is right. Yes, they were plotting my death. Thankfully, the people we pay to kill them completed their mission. Would you have it some other way? You wanted them to fail? Failing means dying. That means they don't come home.

Real nice, Fool. Really nice.

I kinda agree with fool here. "cool" is definately not the right word. Many times in war, you have people who have just barely hit 18 or aren't even there yet and haven't a clue what they are fighting for. Human life is precious, its a pity to waste it, war is an ugly thing.

I think it is a very positive thing that we are cutting down on civilian losses and such, and I think when you have those with the mindset of the taliban, you start running really low on solutions that don't involve killing people.

My point is - Protection of freedom, good, trying as hard as one can to protect innocents, good. Killing a teenager that doesn't even know what he is fighting for, still not cool.

RussDill

12th December 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I have also seen Videos...These videos were interviews with civilians, mostly they were just crying a lot and showing the cameras photos of thier dead wives, husbands, brothers, sisters and children. Seen any of those cool videos?

Precision munitions? yea whatever......

I think you have no conception of the amount of civilian death in past wars, like WWII.

demon

12th December 2003, 08:50 PM

"Sun Tzu’s art of war is one of the first textbooks on strategy. It includes the general advice to make sure that the results of a battle are determined before the attack if possible, rather than running into the battle and guessing. Modern generals and politicians often don’t follow this advice. See Iraq for a prime example.

George Marshall is mostly famous for a little thing he came up with after WWII called the Marshall plan. Must have been a real idiot for doing that! I guess that whole industrial strategy the US used in WWII must have come from “Warfare for Dummies"

Whoa, don`t think `I`m not familiar with those venerated texts.
You see, that`s the problem.
They are a fvcking laugh.
I`d say you aren`t familiar with them yourself if you dare quote them here...what a moron! Sounds mighty fine to mention them and throw the name around. Read them yourelf idiot and see how vacuuos they are. Like all the other warmongering treatise.
Lose someone dear to you in war and come back and quote me Sun Tzu you moron. Go preach it to your bloodthirtsty brethren, those who have not suffered under its quite frankly silly statements.
Jeez, you guys love a con, and "The Art of War" is one of the best.:D

boomer6

12th December 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Then You must imagine that Afganistan is full of untouched mosques and happy dancing civilians? In what way do you think this video is even remotely representative of what advanced western nations do when they bomb the crap out of third world countries? Do you have it in your mind that this video is what it was like?

This video is part of the "precision munitions" myth that is used to attempt to lull the public into some warped idea that this war is any different to any other in the past.. I'll say it again...If the munitions are precision guided what killed all the civilians? Influenza?
So they release a couple of nice sequences cherrypicked from the mass of carnage and the crowd at the coliseum roar with approval.The vast majority of Munitions expended at Afghanis and Iraqis were good old WW2 style dumb ol' Iron bombs....

I have also seen Videos...These videos were interviews with civilians, mostly they were just crying a lot and showing the cameras photos of thier dead wives, husbands, brothers, sisters and children. Seen any of those cool videos?

Yes i have seen those cool videos, Back in the 40's. the videos of the germans and japs crying alot. (poor babies) the germans just didnt understand why we attacked them. hell they didnt attack us. but once again, maybe the world will understand this time. No other country will f**k with our way of life.(period)

demon

12th December 2003, 09:25 PM

"No other country will f**k with our way of life.(period)"

Sylvia Browne tell you that? We`ll see;)

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by boomer6

No other country will f*ck with our way of life.(period)

Until next time, that is.

I tend to think, based on evidence, that, unfortunately, violence has a habit of returning.

Troll

12th December 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Until next time, that is.

I tend to think, based on evidence, that, unfortunately, violence has a habit of returning.

Violence is part of nature regardless of the animal in question. Without it, species would no longer exist. amongst humans, without it some cultures would not exist.

As far as no one messing with us until the next time, you're going to have to control human nature in general. Did Germany themselves learn a lesson after WWI? Nope. They went and tried the same thing again in WWII. It wasn't because anyone was treating them badly with foreign policy or whatever other excuse pathological peacenicks may use to exclaim the reasoning behind the smaller guy using violence. If you kicked Mike Tyson in the shins, it's a childish act on your part, yes, but don't whine if he beats you to a bloody pulp for it.

Now since about 1986 I've been waiting for the kind of attack we had on 9/11. anyone overly shocked by it is a fool. Anyone thinking it was deserved is an utter moron. Anyone excusing it isn't fully aware even in the midst of their claiming that we are not fully aware of the reasons behind it.

Skeptic

13th December 2003, 01:54 PM

They were at least partially stupid in some ways to engage in war. Unwise. One-dimensional. Short term thinkers. Etc.

You seem to believe that great generals LIKE war, which is about a logical as saying that great doctors LIKE disease.

Most generals and military men in general abhor war. They just realize that sometimes it is necessary.

Sorry, I guess the world is equally as important to me as country. I'd like to have a nice world for my future kid's kid's kids to inherit.

Personal question: you're a teenager, aren't you?

Andalyn

13th December 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

My point is - Protection of freedom, good, trying as hard as one can to protect innocents, good. Killing a teenager that doesn't even know what he is fighting for, still not cool.

Well, the teenager still has an AK-47 - and will probably follow orders. It's a shame he doesn't know what he's fighting for, but it doesn't make the teen any less of a threat.

c0rbin

13th December 2003, 05:05 PM

Turning a blind eye and pretending you are the benign paragons of virtue when dealing with those dark skinned natives will get your ass bitten again and again.

Yes, lead the way oh virtuos Europe show us how to deal with the dark skinned natives.

I look to Africa for your Utopia of freedom and wealth.

The Fool

14th December 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

I think you have no conception of the amount of civilian death in past wars, like WWII.
Yes I do...I don't remember anyone in WW2claiming thier bombing was "surgical", "precision" or any other silly term meant to placate the home audience and convince them that thier taxpaying dollars weren't being used to blow up civillians.

Troll

14th December 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Yes I do...I don't remember anyone in WW2claiming thier bombing was "surgical", "precision" or any other silly term meant to placate the home audience and convince them that thier taxpaying dollars weren't being used to blow up civillians.

They do blow up civilians, but they are not used for that purpose.

The carpet bombings of London and other cities, to include the later bombings of Berlin, were still of a nature that didn't care if civilians died because all people of a country were the enemy according to the mindset of those days, so no one would ever even apologize if a civilian died back then.

Now we try our best to avoid them altogether but nothing is perfect

Doubt

14th December 2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by demon
Whoa, don`t think `I`m not familiar with those venerated texts.
You see, that`s the problem.
They are a fvcking laugh.
I`d say you aren`t familiar with them yourself if you dare quote them here...what a moron! Sounds mighty fine to mention them and throw the name around. Read them yourelf idiot and see how vacuuos they are. Like all the other warmongering treatise.

Those venerated texts have served as a guideline to successful military campaigns for a very long time. If you don’t believe it, then go read Mao’s “Basic Tactics”. It is derived from Sun Tzu and was used first to resist the Japanese, and beat the nationalist Chinese. It was then borrowed by the Vietnamese guerillas. If you think it is a laugh, then you don’t really understand the first thing about military operations.

Also most military treatises are about how to fight wars not why wars are fought. Warmongers create reasons to fight, they are most often not the people who figure out how to fight. Your inability to make this distinction tells a great deal about what you don’t understand.

Lose someone dear to you in war and come back and quote me Sun Tzu you moron. Go preach it to your bloodthirtsty brethren, those who have not suffered under its quite frankly silly statements.
Jeez, you guys love a con, and "The Art of War" is one of the best

You must be psychic! How did you know that I was a test tube baby and have no relatives that ever died let alone fought in a war. How did you know that those who trained me were not combat veterans and learned all they know from Saturday morning cartoons!

The reality is that I am a product of the 1980’s. Those who first trained me were Vietnam veterans. One member of my own family crossed the border in 1941 and flew a Hurricane for Canada before the US entered WWII. He later flew for the US. He was shot down and captured while wearing Sergeant stripes with both US and Canadian Wings. He did survive, but was subjected to some “unusual” interrogation before being turned over to the Luftwaffe. I could bring up a few other relatives, but I think I made my point.

Unlike you, I choose not to paint all that disagree with me with the same brush. To assume that all who oppose your point of view are stupid or morons only betrays your overly simplistic view of the world. The only person here who has been conned is you. You have deceived yourself and cannot tell what is real and what is not.

Kodiak

15th December 2003, 05:53 AM

rikzilla

15th December 2003, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

They can't bomb you rick, the terrorists you trained and funded overthrew them after they were democratically elected...ooops. You still harbour and protect these terrorists today rick, they "hide behind civilians" in America....story starting to sound familiar rick? got a bit of an afganistan smell to it?Starting to dawn on you yet? But as you say, killing people doesn't worry you.... Its useful idiots like you that are absolutely needed by America at the moment, keep up the good work.

Fool,

You cannot democratically elect a government who's first action is to abolish elections.

Oh, and BTW if it was up to people like you Saddam would still be merrily murdering his people and gathering stronger weapons. Thanks to people like me his nasty, living-in-a-dirt-hole-ass is now in a cell.

Hey,...here that sound Fool? Those people celebrating in the streets? That's the sound of GWB winning his second term. That's the sound of the WOT cranking into high gear till at least 2008! :D

If I believed in God, I'd be thanking him.

-z

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Luke T.

15th December 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by demon
"Sun Tzu’s art of war is one of the first textbooks on strategy. It includes the general advice to make sure that the results of a battle are determined before the attack if possible, rather than running into the battle and guessing. Modern generals and politicians often don’t follow this advice. See Iraq for a prime example.

George Marshall is mostly famous for a little thing he came up with after WWII called the Marshall plan. Must have been a real idiot for doing that! I guess that whole industrial strategy the US used in WWII must have come from “Warfare for Dummies"

Whoa, don`t think `I`m not familiar with those venerated texts.
You see, that`s the problem.
They are a fvcking laugh.
I`d say you aren`t familiar with them yourself if you dare quote them here...what a moron! Sounds mighty fine to mention them and throw the name around. Read them yourelf idiot and see how vacuuos they are. Like all the other warmongering treatise.
Lose someone dear to you in war and come back and quote me Sun Tzu you moron. Go preach it to your bloodthirtsty brethren, those who have not suffered under its quite frankly silly statements.
Jeez, you guys love a con, and "The Art of War" is one of the best.:D

Demon, you are totally clueless.

Someone else said it here, and I will repeat it. Those of us in the military despise war more than you do. Please allow that to sink in. Meditate on it. Burn some incense and allow it to permeate your brain cells.

Those of us in the military travel around and see the real world. We learn an appreciation for how good the U.S. has it in ways you never will. And it increases our dislike of those who deny others a taste of the freedoms and liberties we enjoy and take so much for granted.

I just deleted a long story about what it is like to be in war, but I just don't feel like wasting it on someone like you who won't get it. I will tell you, though, there is nothing pleasant about it. There is no freaking bloodthirsty joy and glee. It is a rock in your belly that reappears every time you think about it for the rest of your life.

Skeptic

15th December 2003, 08:07 AM

I just deleted a long story about what it is like to be in war, but I just don't feel like wasting it on someone like you who won't get it.

Well, let me try. With your premission, though, I'd concentrate merely on the physical unpleasentness, leaving the terror and mental anguish out of it.

Demon, please arrange for someone to wake you up at 5:30 AM by throwing a few of those old-fashioned metal garbage cans right next to you.

Wake up. Shower with cold water, and shave with half a cup of the icy remnant. Wear your dirtiest, oldest clothes, and throw some mud on them for good measure. As for food, eat a day-old bagel and some cold porrige.

In your backpack, instead of a few books or a laptop, put four or five bricks, each weighting at least six pounds or so. Put it on and don't take it off all day. In addition, take a long, heavy iron bar, and carry it with you in the same way, all day, everywhere.

Go outside. Every time you see a puddle, fall face first into it, a few times. Rinse, repeat. Whenever you see somebody else in the street, dive into the nearest trash can and don't get out until he passes. Try to have him not notive you, despite the fact that you stick out like a sore thumb. Arrange for some friends to come by once in a while and throw big rocks at you as you do that, as well.

Walk for ten miles over hills and valleys, looking for a stray bull. When you see it, try to approach it without it noticing. When it DOES notice you, run like hell, trying to avoid its horns, until you see a dump you can fall into to escape it.

Sleep for two hours at night, repeat.

THIS, Demon, is what life "in the field of war" is like, translated into a language someone who never experienced it could understand. THIS is the "good life" these war-mongering baby-killing American soldiers so desperately want to have all the time, according to you.

demon

15th December 2003, 10:19 AM

Ok, I`m convinced.
All you military guys are benign and well intentioned.
You just go about the world defending the weak and poor and defending civil rights too.
No murdering dictator or tyrant or despot ever received any help from the great US military. No innocent civilians were ever massacred by the great US military. You always play by the rules and by the book.
What`s wrong with those damn Arabs that they can`t understand that too? You are just helping them out! Aren`t they silly?
I understand now. What a hard life you lead defending us all too. Thank you for enlightening me.
Ok, back to my Sun Tzu. It`s bloody good stuff you know.

c0rbin

15th December 2003, 10:47 AM

It's a complicated world, demon.

One must do what one can. Sometimes that means sharing a table with theives.

It would be nice if the world were perfect, but it isn't and we must struggle to even approach it.

Doubt

15th December 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by demon
Ok, I`m convinced.
All you military guys are benign and well intentioned.
You just go about the world defending the weak and poor and defending civil rights too.
No murdering dictator or tyrant or despot ever received any help from the great US military. No innocent civilians were ever massacred by the great US military. You always play by the rules and by the book.
What`s wrong with those damn Arabs that they can`t understand that too? You are just helping them out! Aren`t they silly?
I understand now. What a hard life you lead defending us all too. Thank you for enlightening me.
Ok, back to my Sun Tzu. It`s bloody good stuff you know.

Sarcasm + no argument = ???

demon

15th December 2003, 12:00 PM

"It's a complicated world, demon.

One must do what one can. Sometimes that means sharing a table with theives."

Not so much complicated as corrupt and hypocritical.
Try Islam Karimov, President of Uzbekistan, a near carbon-copy of Saddam Hussein,Pinochet etc. and currently a very close and valued ally of the Bush regime for the latest "theif" at the table.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html

Larspeart

15th December 2003, 12:02 PM

[QUOTE]Yes I do...I don't remember anyone in WW2claiming thier bombing was "surgical", "precision" or any other silly term meant to placate the home audience and convince them that thier taxpaying dollars weren't being used to blow up civillians. Originally posted by Troll
[B]

The difference is, this fellow on the (safe) homefront doesn't need placating. I fully accept that in any war, civilian casualties are part of the norm.

Part of the way I can do that is that it simply is part of war.

The other part is, in a very round-about sort of war, they bright it on themselves (most of the time).

Before ya'll jump on me, let me give an example or two (then you can jump on me, hehe).

Saddam has been in power for over 30 years. According to the 'innocent Iraqi' theory, the Iraqis have hated and wanted him out for as long. They have done NOTHING to get rid of him via any means. Few assasination attempts, coups, up-risings, etc have been staged by the local Iraqis. 'well, they knew they would die if they tried!' someone might say. 'Sure! So let the rich Americans that we hate die do it for us instead.' Seems to be the general idea that they seem to function on. With that kind of approach, no ones hands are clean, and I have no sympathy.

Look, no one likes to see a church or school get bombed, but if you know your church is next door to an arms depot, it MIGHT be time to move the church, or hold service at the rabbi/priest/clerics home. A little common sense goes a LONG way.