Re: that would suck

[Buzzer]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:09:27 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Patrik" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What´s even worse is that he gave his blood for oil. And he is not alone..
>
>How much oil are they pumping out of Afghanistan these days? You are not the
>brightest bulb in the dirt, now are you?
>
>Brooks

"Don't think there is a connection between Afghanistan and the oil
monopolies? Think again..."
http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

><plonk>

[WalterM140]

>> What´s even worse is that he gave his blood for oil. And he is not alone..
>
>The man died in AFGHANISTAN. That was the war we all agreed on.
>

Depends on how far you want to go back.

Absent Bush Sr. stumbling into the first Gulf war everything else is moot as
far as Iraq is concerned.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>How much oil are they pumping out of Afghanistan these days? You are not the
>brightest bulb in the dirt, now are you?
>
>Brooks

If the 135,000 U.S. troops that shouldn't be in Iraq at all had been backing up
Pat Tillman, he might not be dead.

This is a war over oil and corporate profits, make no mistake about it.

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the 135,000 U.S. troops that shouldn't be in Iraq at all had been
backing up
> Pat Tillman, he might not be dead.
>
> This is a war over oil and corporate profits, make no mistake about it.
>

There's no mistake about it, you're an idiot.

[WalterM140]

>> If the 135,000 U.S. troops that shouldn't be in Iraq at all had been
>backing up
>> Pat Tillman, he might not be dead.
>>
>> This is a war over oil and corporate profits, make no mistake about it.
>>
>
>There's no mistake about it, you're an idiot.
>

Well, my goodness.

'Fraid not, pard. Why else the all-fired mighty hurry to attack Iraq, since
it's clear that there was never any threat to the USA from that ancient place?

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> 'Fraid not, pard.
>

That's not for you to decide.

[WalterM140]

>> 'Fraid not, pard.
>>
>
>That's not for you to decide.
>

When you've no answer at all, it is.

Walt

[Kevin Brooks]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >How much oil are they pumping out of Afghanistan these days? You are not
the
> >brightest bulb in the dirt, now are you?
> >
> >Brooks
>
> If the 135,000 U.S. troops that shouldn't be in Iraq at all had been
backing up
> Pat Tillman, he might not be dead.
>
> This is a war over oil and corporate profits, make no mistake about it.
>
> Walt

You are in need of increased dosage of your meds. Plonk.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:09:27 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Patrik" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> What´s even worse is that he gave his blood for oil. And he is not
alone..
> >
> >How much oil are they pumping out of Afghanistan these days? You are not
the
> >brightest bulb in the dirt, now are you?
> >
> >Brooks
>
> "Don't think there is a connection between Afghanistan and the oil
> monopolies? Think again..."
> http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

Another strange agent...did somebody put something in the water lately? The
conspiracy-whackos are in rare form...<plonk>.

Brooks

>
> ><plonk>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> When you've no answer at all, it is.
>

No, really, you're not in a position to make that judgment.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Gray asphalt" > wrote in message
> news:0Fmjc.1520$Qy.606@fed1read04...
> >
> > No offense but there are a lot of Jewish
> > people in this country who can't believe
> > how violent the Israelis are. Some of their
> > own pilots quit flying because they were
> > asked to bomb civilians.
> >
>
> Terrorists are civilians.

Not always. There have been a few terrorist incidents perpetrated by
military and paramilitary personnel operating directly for states; Lockerbie
springs to mind, as do a couple of cases involving the DPRK.

Brooks

<snip cross-posted groups>

>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not always. There have been a few terrorist incidents perpetrated by
> military and paramilitary personnel operating directly for states;
Lockerbie
> springs to mind, as do a couple of cases involving the DPRK.
>

The terrorists targeted by Israel are not operating for a state.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Not always. There have been a few terrorist incidents perpetrated by
> > military and paramilitary personnel operating directly for states;
> Lockerbie
> > springs to mind, as do a couple of cases involving the DPRK.
> >
>
> The terrorists targeted by Israel are not operating for a state.

That is not what you said, now was it?

Brooks
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is not what you said, now was it?
>

Follow the thread.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That is not what you said, now was it?
> >
>
> Follow the thread.

"Terrorists are civilians."

Doesn't take much thread following to figure out you were off-base with that
definitive, and incorrect, statement.

Brooks

>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Terrorists are civilians."
>
> Doesn't take much thread following to figure out you were off-base
> with that definitive, and incorrect, statement.
>

Actually, that determination requires that you ignore the thread.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Terrorists are civilians."
> >
> > Doesn't take much thread following to figure out you were off-base
> > with that definitive, and incorrect, statement.
> >
>
> Actually, that determination requires that you ignore the thread.

No, having read the thread it appears that you were a bit quick to make a
definitive statement; had you put a "sometimes" in front of your
declaration, it would have been A-OK. Since you have not objected to the
idea that sometimes terrorists are *not* civilians, we'll chalk it up to
your poor choice in wording. Everyone who posts is sometimes guilty of being
a bit less than clear with their wording at one time or another, and most of
us admit it when it happens--why you can't seem to do so is a question for
which I really don't care to know the answer. Adios.

Brooks

>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, having read the thread it appears that you were a bit quick
> to make a definitive statement; had you put a "sometimes" in front
> of your declaration, it would have been A-OK.
>

While it may appear that way to you, it doesn't appear that way to anyone
following the thread.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, having read the thread it appears that you were a bit quick
> > to make a definitive statement; had you put a "sometimes" in front
> > of your declaration, it would have been A-OK.
> >
>
> While it may appear that way to you, it doesn't appear that way to anyone
> following the thread.

How can you be so sure of that? Another premature/unsubstantiated
declaration from you, it appears... Does the absence of active disagreement
from others imply their agreement?

Brooks
>
>

[BUFDRVR]

>No offense but there are a lot of Jewish
>people in this country who can't believe
>how violent the Israelis are. Some of their
>own pilots quit flying because they were
>asked to bomb civilians.

Not quite accurate. Several IAF reserve pilots refused to fly strike missions
into the West Bank and Gaza Strip because they felt collateral damage issues
were not being properly addressed.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>the media has covered the alleged cases where pilots
>refused to conduct strikes because they were not satisfied that the target
>they were being asked to hit was a legitimate terrorist target

Unless this was a second case, I thought the first simply involved a refusal
due to what several reserve pilots felt was less than adequate collateral
damage concerns?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >the media has covered the alleged cases where pilots
> >refused to conduct strikes because they were not satisfied that the
target
> >they were being asked to hit was a legitimate terrorist target
>
> Unless this was a second case, I thought the first simply involved a
refusal
> due to what several reserve pilots felt was less than adequate collateral
> damage concerns?

Actually, two different cases. I believe what you are referring to was the
infamous letter signed by the twenty-some pilots who were indeed concerned
over collateral damage in terms of the targeted assassination strike
missions. The case I was referring to was the one reported a year or two
earlier, where an attack helo pilot acknowledged that he (and apparently
some of his comrades) had on occasion turned down CAS target requests
(during the movement into the Paelestinaian Authority controlled areas, and
immediately thereafter) because they were not satisfied that the target they
were given was appropriate. ISTR Defense News covered it at the time.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >No offense but there are a lot of Jewish
> >people in this country who can't believe
> >how violent the Israelis are. Some of their
> >own pilots quit flying because they were
> >asked to bomb civilians.
>
> Not quite accurate. Several IAF reserve pilots refused to fly strike
missions
> into the West Bank and Gaza Strip because they felt collateral damage
issues
> were not being properly addressed.

Yes and no. I believe the poster was correct in that there were also
incidences of immediate CAS being refused by attack helos because the pilots
were not convinced the target they were being given was legitimate, or that
the folks calling in the mission were really sure that the bad guys were in
that exact location. But the case of pilots signing the letter saying they
refused to fly the missions you noted also occured as you describe.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> How can you be so sure of that?
>

Because it can be no other way.

[[email protected]]

"Gray asphalt" > wrote:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>:
>: "717" > wrote in message
>: news:QWRjc.18592$Z%5.14063@okepread01...
>: >
>: > That's a fine line, isn't it... And if the pilots thought
>: > the collateral damage was significant enough to
>: > compell them to refuse to fly then that's a pretty
>: > serious indication that the missions were planned
>: > in a way that discounted civilian lives to a degree
>: > that the pilots were unwilling to participate.
>: >
>:
>: Remember, the terrorists they're being directed to bomb are killing
>Israeli
>: civilians.
>:
>:
>
>No offence, but they know exactly who they
>were bombing and they chose to disobey orders
>which is a strong statement.
>
>
I must agree with you...these aren't some ragtag groups who have
little sense of what's going on, these are very professional
military people and if they are so confident of their convictions
then it would behoove their superiors to investigate. Too bad
that the German military didn't use this tactic a few years ago.
--

-Gord.

[BUFDRVR]

>Yes and no. I believe the poster was correct in that there were also
>incidences of immediate CAS being refused by attack helos because the pilots
>were not convinced the target they were being given was legitimate

OK, I don't remember that one. That, to me, seems a less legitimate call...at
least the first time. I mean, when a guy on the ground makes a CAS request,
he's getting my benifit of doubt (if I have any in the first place). Perhaps
this refusal was due to repeated incidents of substantial collateral damage
events during CAS missions? But man, I'm hear to tell you, from my perspective
that would still be a tough call...


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Yes and no. I believe the poster was correct in that there were also
> >incidences of immediate CAS being refused by attack helos because the
pilots
> >were not convinced the target they were being given was legitimate
>
> OK, I don't remember that one. That, to me, seems a less legitimate
call...at
> least the first time. I mean, when a guy on the ground makes a CAS
request,
> he's getting my benifit of doubt (if I have any in the first place).
Perhaps
> this refusal was due to repeated incidents of substantial collateral
damage
> events during CAS missions? But man, I'm hear to tell you, from my
perspective
> that would still be a tough call...

I agree, but as I recall it, the pilot who acknowledged it indicated that
they were getting antsy about some of the calls from the folks on the
ground, so they started asking pointed questions. The guy on the ground
would say we took some fire, hit that building...and the pilot would come
back with something like, are you sure that is the source of the fires,
which window, etc.? It has been a couple of years now, but I can remember
being actually sort of impressed with the pilot's view, which was something
along the lines of, if it is truly a legit target, within reasonable doubt,
no problemno, it is serviced; but if you just took a couple of rounds and
don't *know* the exact source, I am not going to launch a Hellfire into an
apartment building because you just think it might be a possible source of
fires. When the number of unarmed people you are killing with "surgical"
strikes outnumbers the number of armed personnel you are killing by a wide
(three or four-to-one) margin, then methinks there is a bit of a targeting
problem, and it likely is *not* on the pilots' side of the equation, IMO.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"