Edwards AFB 2004 air show cancelled

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

What I don't get is how you can claim this is a
religious war.

Try re-reading my original statement:

[quote to TJP] And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation
of Iraq being seen ******by muslims**** as a war against their
religion? [unquote]

Now let's review. I don't claim this is a religious war. I claim that
muslims now view our continued occupation of Iraq as a war against
islam. You and I don't get to frame their perception of US occupation
of Iraq...they do.

You claim this is simply one campaign in the war against terror. But
that claim is BS to most people on the planet. Here's what we all
know.

Saddam had ZERO to do with 9/11, he had been "contained" since 1991,
the almost uniformly ****ty intel [USAF Intel held a dissenting
opinion from what I read] was wrong about WMD, the 9/11 Commission
concludes that there was ZERO operational cooperation between
Hussein's despotic regime and al-****ing-qaeda. ZERO evidence that
Saddam Hussein was planning any terrorist attack against the US.

The events since gwb declared "mission accomplished" indicate gwb was
GROSSLY in error. But hey, he was grossly in error about exporting
good ole uhmurikan democracy smack dap in the middle of the arab
world.

The current fighting around Najaf is against men demonstrating loyalty
(or getting paid) to a guy that was anti-Saddam Hussein (just like
george bush). But this guy want's part of the "action" WRT running
Iraq. He wants to form an islamic state. This guy would be supremely
happy to never see an american face again...if we would just leave.
But that ain't gonna happen.

We don't really give a rat's ass what religion they
are, it's the fact that they (the terrorists) want us dead and will do
whatever they can to do it.

Well since there were no al-Qaeda camps in Iraq before we invaded your
point is irrelevant WRT the fight around Najaf. And fortunately the
military commanders in Iraq do not share your binary [black/white,
on/off, "with us" (patriot)/"against us" (terrorist)] POV.

Last night I read a quote from a USMC Col or Gen commanding some
troops near Najaf. Paraphrasing (cause I'll be damned if I will take
the time to hunt for it now) he said..."WRT to fighting a guerilla war
against insurgents [NOT TERRORISTS] around Najaf, we [USMC good guys]
must be sensitive to the religious implications of attacking forces
hiding in a holy muslim shrine."

My point? ****** [If you read nothing else read this!]*******

The officers and men fighting in Iraq characterize the combat as
guerilla war against insurgents...not some monolithic terrorist cabal.
Nor do they paint a picture of a religious war. But they also must
take steps to mitigate any appearance of making this a war against
islam. The latter clearly acknowledges what many muslims already
think.

The terrorists happen to be Islamic and
are using their religion to try to justify it. We couldn't care less
if they were Catholic, Buddist, or Holy Rollers. It's their actions
not their religion that is causing the problem.

Here's your logic, al-qaeda terrorists attacked us, we're fighting
terrorism, ergo ANYBODY that attacks americans inside Iraq must be a
terrorist.

Elegantly simple...but oh so simplistic, and simply faulty logic.

If you truly think MaS and his followers are terrorists, why hasn't
gwb or his dick [cheney] ever mentioned MaS as a terrorist? Answer?
They know MaS is an extremist cleric NOT a terrorist.

In April 2004 the stated policy (articulated by the US General
briefing the press in Baghdad) was to capture or kill ANYBODY killing
US forces or inciting others to kill US troops. But this policy is on
hold as we try to get MaS to leave the shrine in Najaf.

Our occupation of Iraq will be lengthy. It will tie up resources that
could have been used in the real war against terrorists, and limit our
options elsewhere. It must...finite resources...most resources tied up
in Iraq or stateside reconstituting for a return to Iraq...means you
have limited your options for any other crisis.

Robey

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

Yeah that's it, I'm a racist.

I think you are. Hitler and the Nazis blamed the jews, James L Hart in
the 8th District of TN vows if elected to work toward keeping "less
favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States.

The fact that you can even attempt to claim I'm being a racist by
saying the majority of terrorism against the US originates in the Middle East...

The problem is that isn't what you said. And you know it.

Which nicely sums up the whole problem of that asshole of the world
known as The Middle East.

Clearly not all muslims are terrorists. I think there are smarter ways
to hunt down and kill the real terrorist islamist [note the i-s-t vice
i-c] ****s rather than invade an arab country and impose our will.

suggests you're either a frickin' imbecil or a limp-wristed,
let's-all-hug-a-tree-they-were-just-expressing-freedom-of-religion, pacifist.

Wanna compare MENSA scores? Does card carrying atheist, former Sierra
Club member with gay friends count?

Robey

Paul Hirose wrote:

The 2004 Edwards AFB open house and air show has been cancelled.

According to the AFFTC commander, Maj. Gen. Pearson, "Our country is
currently engaged in a global war on terrorism, and all of our
military resources and efforts must go toward supporting that cause...
I assure you that the cancellation is not related to organizational
command changes within the Air Force Flight Test Center nor is it
related to any specific terrorist threat."

http://www.edwards.af.mil/oh.html

Running short on flying things, eh?

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse"

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:02:55 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

Yeah that's it, I'm a racist.

I think you are.

It's a free country.



Hitler and the Nazis blamed the jews, James L Hart in
the 8th District of TN vows if elected to work toward keeping "less
favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States.

The fact that you can even attempt to claim I'm being a racist by
saying the majority of terrorism against the US originates in the Middle East...

The problem is that isn't what you said. And you know it.

Which nicely sums up the whole problem of that asshole of the world
known as The Middle East.

Clearly not all muslims are terrorists.

No, but a pretty high percentage of terrorists are Muslim. And Muslim
is a religion not a race. IT so happens the Middle East has a high
percentage of Muslims. If for some reason 99% of the terrorists came
from Brazil then I'd have said Brazil was the asshole of the world.
It has absolutley *nothing* to do with race and trying to make the
debate about race actually weakens your position. It comes across
like a desperate attempt to play the race card.




I think there are smarter ways
to hunt down and kill the real terrorist islamist [note the i-s-t vice
i-c] ****s rather than invade an arab country and impose our will.

suggests you're either a frickin' imbecil or a limp-wristed,
let's-all-hug-a-tree-they-were-just-expressing-freedom-of-religion, pacifist.

Wanna compare MENSA scores?


Sure.



Does card carrying atheist, former Sierra
Club member with gay friends count?


Nothing wrong with being an atheist. I wouldn't criticize someone for
not believing in Santa Claus either.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:39:46 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

What I don't get is how you can claim this is a
religious war.

Try re-reading my original statement:

[quote to TJP] And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation
of Iraq being seen ******by muslims**** as a war against their
religion? [unquote]

Now let's review. I don't claim this is a religious war. I claim that
muslims now view our continued occupation of Iraq as a war against
islam.


I think a more accurate statement would be "accoding to what the media
tells us. . . " and unfortunately we rarely get an objective story it
seems these days.




You and I don't get to frame their perception of US occupation
of Iraq...they do.

You claim this is simply one campaign in the war against terror. But
that claim is BS to most people on the planet. Here's what we all
know.

Saddam had ZERO to do with 9/11, he had been "contained" since 1991,
the almost uniformly ****ty intel [USAF Intel held a dissenting
opinion from what I read] was wrong about WMD, the 9/11 Commission
concludes that there was ZERO operational cooperation between
Hussein's despotic regime and al-****ing-qaeda. ZERO evidence that
Saddam Hussein was planning any terrorist attack against the US.

The events since gwb declared "mission accomplished" indicate gwb was
GROSSLY in error. But hey, he was grossly in error about exporting
good ole uhmurikan democracy smack dap in the middle of the arab
world.

The current fighting around Najaf is against men demonstrating loyalty
(or getting paid) to a guy that was anti-Saddam Hussein (just like
george bush). But this guy want's part of the "action" WRT running
Iraq. He wants to form an islamic state. This guy would be supremely
happy to never see an american face again...if we would just leave.
But that ain't gonna happen.

We don't really give a rat's ass what religion they
are, it's the fact that they (the terrorists) want us dead and will do
whatever they can to do it.

Well since there were no al-Qaeda camps in Iraq before we invaded your
point is irrelevant WRT the fight around Najaf. And fortunately the
military commanders in Iraq do not share your binary [black/white,
on/off, "with us" (patriot)/"against us" (terrorist)] POV.

Last night I read a quote from a USMC Col or Gen commanding some
troops near Najaf. Paraphrasing (cause I'll be damned if I will take
the time to hunt for it now) he said..."WRT to fighting a guerilla war
against insurgents [NOT TERRORISTS] around Najaf, we [USMC good guys]
must be sensitive to the religious implications of attacking forces
hiding in a holy muslim shrine."

My point? ****** [If you read nothing else read this!]*******

The officers and men fighting in Iraq characterize the combat as
guerilla war against insurgents...not some monolithic terrorist cabal.
Nor do they paint a picture of a religious war. But they also must
take steps to mitigate any appearance of making this a war against
islam. The latter clearly acknowledges what many muslims already
think.

The terrorists happen to be Islamic and
are using their religion to try to justify it. We couldn't care less
if they were Catholic, Buddist, or Holy Rollers. It's their actions
not their religion that is causing the problem.

Here's your logic, al-qaeda terrorists attacked us, we're fighting
terrorism, ergo ANYBODY that attacks americans inside Iraq must be a
terrorist.


YOu have to ask yourself "why *would* anybody attack the US froces in
Iraq?" Do they want the US to leave? Well attacking our forces
isn't going to speed THAT process up. Are you saying those who kidnap
Americans and behead them on video aren't terrorists? Are those guys
with the bandanas wrapped wround their heads and holding the machine
guns in the videos merely "religious zealots"? And if so then what
*is* the difference between a religious zealot and a terrorist? And
if the legitimate Iraqi government is on your side and you have a
group of people shooting at you do you wave the "time-out" card in the
middle of a fire-fight so you can check to see if they're
card-carrying "religious zealots" rather than terrorists? They know
why we're there, if they chose to fight on the same side as the
terrorists then they'll reap their rewards. Let's put it another way:
Say there is a guy who's holding up a convenience store and has shot
one of the clerks. I'm just a customer who was in the wrong place at
the wrong time. When the cops bust in to take the killer in-hand, if
I jump one of the them and start beating him up do you think they'd
stop and say "oh, he's not with the killer we should let him go"?
Hell no. Likely they'd shoot my ass.











Elegantly simple...but oh so simplistic, and simply faulty logic.

If you truly think MaS and his followers are terrorists, why hasn't
gwb or his dick [cheney] ever mentioned MaS as a terrorist? Answer?
They know MaS is an extremist cleric NOT a terrorist.

In April 2004 the stated policy (articulated by the US General
briefing the press in Baghdad) was to capture or kill ANYBODY killing
US forces or inciting others to kill US troops. But this policy is on
hold as we try to get MaS to leave the shrine in Najaf.


Only because he's in the shrine. If he'd been holed up in some
warehouse they'd have just dropped a bomb on it.





Our occupation of Iraq will be lengthy. It will tie up resources that
could have been used in the real war against terrorists, and limit our
options elsewhere.


In marked contrast to what Northern and Southern watch were tying up
over the last ten years? Not to mention going in and bombing ****
every six months anyway because Saddam started acting up. Better to
go in and spend a year or two and put the problem to rest rather than
tying up resources on it for another 30 years.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

I think a more accurate statement would be "accoding to what the media
tells us. . . " and unfortunately we rarely get an objective story it
seems these days.

Geez Scott...the ****ing 9/11 commission confirmed my statements,
they're not Fox News or the vast liberal media conspiritors that
O'Reilly always whines about.

YOu have to ask yourself "why *would* anybody attack the US froces in
Iraq?"

Easy answer...Iraqi citizen says, "Hey America, thanks for getting rid
of that ****ing Saddam Hussein...why are you still here? Leave my
country NOW." Some Iraqi factions maneuvering for power are equally
thankful for getting rid of SH, absent the Baathists and Tikritis.
According to a RAND study, the US "****ed up" (my word) by not having
enough troops/police/civil affairs folks on the ground to ensure
domestic tranquility. Result? Guerilla war as competing factions vie
for power amongst themselves and against the US which they now see as
NOTHING MORE than an occupier that's killing muslims that might or
might not have been Hussein thugs.

Do they want the US to leave? Well attacking our forces
isn't going to speed THAT process up.

You're probably right. Not having a better ratio of US/allied
personnel to Iraqi citizens (according to RAND) will certainly make
this a long slog!

Are you saying those who kidnap Americans and behead them on video aren't terrorists?

Never said that...never even suggested that. You may recall (but
probably don't) that those ****s claimed the original beheading was in
DIRECT RETALIATION for the Abu Ghraib **** storm. Again you and I
don't get to color an Iraqi's perception of what happens or gets
reported on arab TV.

[FWIW, prior to our invasion I think the number of al-qaeda asswipes
in Iraq totaled the square root of negative 1, but NOW there maybe
hundreds or thousands of those ****s in-country...the borders are so
damn porous. Which is NOT to say MaS and his merry band are al-qaeda.]

We're doing lots of great things in Iraq WRT to civil affairs outside
of the Sunni triangle, Najaf, etc. But all those attaboys mean the
square root of **** all to the folks competing for power, or that
simply want us to leave.

There was a great article on 8/15 in the Philly Inquirer about a USMC
outfit in western Iraq written by an imbedded reporter. Lots of
heroism, and lots of deadly combat against well trained, well
coordinated, sharpshooting Iraqi guerillas (the Marines even say so).

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/ you'll have to register then look
for http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...9401925.htm?1c
titled The Battle of Rimadi.

They know why we're there, if they chose to fight on the same side as the
terrorists then they'll reap their rewards.

Again you presume to think Iraqis must think like you, and perceive
the occupation of their country by friggin INFIDELS as a good thing.
Jesus ****ing christ Scott...are you really that dense? Sure as
americans, our troops are going to shoot first and sort it out later.
No uniforms and no team jerseys for insurgents or terrorists.
Classifying ALL opposition fighters as terrorists is the zenith of
ignorance.

Let's put it another way:

No look at it this way. Muslims invade America to remove George Bush
(yeah he's an asshole, but he's our asshole) from power, AND they want
to establish a religious form of government. Here it is 18+ months
after they removed george from power, and they're still here. I bet
every bible thumping anti-abortion knucklehead and every ACLU member
would be fighting the occupation of our nation.

Only because he's in the shrine. If he'd been holed up in some
warehouse they'd have just dropped a bomb on it.

Wanna bet? MaS is literally asking the US to make him a martyr (like
some really famous islamic dude) when he isn't saying, "Oh yeah, we'll
leave the shrine and have a cease-fire." If we kill him we are so
****ed. The PR from such an event will not be good.

In marked contrast to what Northern and Southern watch were tying up
over the last ten years?

Dumb question Scott... yes! NW and SW were principally USAF
operations...NO Army Guard or Reserves. There were no ANG units
activated (AFAIK) for two years at a time to support NW/SW.
Containment worked!

The ANG unit at Jackson MS recently switched from 141s to C-17s. They
are not even close to being MR (you know what that means since you
were in the USAF), but they are flying "training sorties" into Iraq
and Afghanistan because there are not enough resources. Guys (read
aircrew) cannot resign from some units because of the "stop loss"
provisions. "Stop Loss" WAS NOT in effect during NW/SW. I was never
notified that I was affected by "Stop Loss" for NW/SW...but was for
Bosnia/Kosovo...guess what?

Better to go in and spend a year or two and put the problem to rest rather than
tying up resources on it for another 30 years.

A year or two? How about ten or twelve?

I encourage you to join the military and get over there to help them
out. I've heard they're looking for volunteers, and you've got the
"right" attitude. Whata-ya-say? Sign up today...

YOu have to ask yourself "why *would* anybody attack the US froces in
Iraq?"

Easy answer...Iraqi citizen says, "Hey America, thanks for getting rid
of that ****ing Saddam Hussein...why are you still here? Leave my
country NOW." Some Iraqi factions maneuvering for power are equally
thankful for getting rid of SH, absent the Baathists and Tikritis.
According to a RAND study, the US "****ed up" (my word) by not having
enough troops/police/civil affairs folks on the ground to ensure
domestic tranquility.


In this I am in total agreement. I think Rumsfeld was so anxious to
sell "transformation" that the US military got the shaft in a huge way
over there. About half the people they ought to have had and no plan
for after the war.




[FWIW, prior to our invasion I think the number of al-qaeda asswipes
in Iraq totaled the square root of negative 1, but NOW there maybe
hundreds or thousands of those ****s in-country...the borders are so
damn porous. Which is NOT to say MaS and his merry band are al-qaeda.]


Never said MaS is al-qaeda. It was pretty obvious from the first time
he opened his mouth and praised 9/11 that he was bad news though.





We're doing lots of great things in Iraq WRT to civil affairs outside
of the Sunni triangle, Najaf, etc. But all those attaboys mean the
square root of **** all to the folks competing for power, or that
simply want us to leave.

So the choice is to leave and leave the Iraq people at the mercy of
those trying to grab power or stay to finish the job. Which would you
choose?







There was a great article on 8/15 in the Philly Inquirer about a USMC
outfit in western Iraq written by an imbedded reporter. Lots of
heroism, and lots of deadly combat against well trained, well
coordinated, sharpshooting Iraqi guerillas (the Marines even say so).

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/ you'll have to register then look
for http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...9401925.htm?1c
titled The Battle of Rimadi.

They know why we're there, if they chose to fight on the same side as the
terrorists then they'll reap their rewards.

Again you presume to think Iraqis must think like you, and perceive
the occupation of their country by friggin INFIDELS as a good thing.


And you do the same by presuming that since those grabbing for power
are ****ed that there is opposition the entire population of Iraq
would prefer we leave.




Jesus ****ing christ Scott...are you really that dense? Sure as
americans, our troops are going to shoot first and sort it out later.
No uniforms and no team jerseys for insurgents or terrorists.
Classifying ALL opposition fighters as terrorists is the zenith of
ignorance.


I've stated that they aren't all terrorists. HOWEVER, fighting on the
side of the terrorists, even if not FOR them. . .well when it gets
down to it WTF does it matter what their motivation is? You shoot at
US soldiers your going to get shot back at. Period. Saddam is gone
and there's a power vaccum and every asshole with delusions of
granduer in Iraq is trying to fill it. Should we let them? Should we
turn a blind eye while they shoot at our soldiers? Sure sounds like
that's what you're saying.






Let's put it another way:

No look at it this way. Muslims invade America to remove George Bush
(yeah he's an asshole, but he's our asshole)

Ah NOW it begins to make sense.




from power, AND they want
to establish a religious form of government. Here it is 18+ months
after they removed george from power, and they're still here. I bet
every bible thumping anti-abortion knucklehead and every ACLU member
would be fighting the occupation of our nation.

Well the ACLU would be holding protests I'm sure but they'd probably
**** their pants at the thought of even touching a gun.



I encourage you to join the military and get over there to help them
out. I've heard they're looking for volunteers, and you've got the
"right" attitude. Whata-ya-say? Sign up today...

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

In this I am in total agreement...

As Dan Patrick used to say on ESPN Sports Center, "That deserves a
'Wow.'"...WOW!

Never said MaS is al-qaeda. It was pretty obvious from the first time
he opened his mouth and praised 9/11 that he was bad news though.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure I've been trying to state that MaS was NOT a
terrorist, and you'e been arguing the opposite. But hey, again we're
apparently in agreement.

So the choice is to leave and leave the Iraq people at the mercy of
those trying to grab power or stay to finish the job. Which would you
choose?

First...I would NEVER have invaded. Containment was working. But that
is no longer an option. Second, I would not have taken down the
despotic SH regime without international consensus, including "old
europe."

WRT to the current situation? Tough call, I find no compelling reason
that Iraq should not be broken up into several ethnic states. But that
has a host of problems too. I'd try damn hard to get our friends in
europe in on the problem (stability and reconstruction) and knock off
the purely BS situation of Halliburton et al (KB&R) running the
contracting. I'd have gwb admit publically, "Hey, I ****ed
up...sorry."

Again you presume to think Iraqis must think like you, and perceive
the occupation of their country by friggin INFIDELS as a good thing.


And you do the same by presuming that since those grabbing for power
are ****ed that there is opposition the entire population of Iraq
would prefer we leave.

No, I do think those fighting us want us out...I suspect every Iraqi
wants stability, and many embrace the security our troops offer. My
whole issue with your statements has to do with "lumping" all
opposition as terrorists, which clearly you've backed away from.

I've stated that they aren't all terrorists. HOWEVER, fighting on the
side of the terrorists, even if not FOR them. . .well when it gets
down to it WTF does it matter what their motivation is?

To a grunt it makes no difference, to commander? Big difference.

Well the ACLU would be holding protests I'm sure but they'd probably
**** their pants at the thought of even touching a gun.

No, I'm pretty sure I'd be shooting.

Keith Willshaw wrote:

No he didnt, Sadr didnt oppose the overthrow od Saddam.
Trouble is he believes that he has the god given right to
rule Iraq in his place.

Problem is that US is thinking they can rule Iraq, it is WRONG. Have we
heard of Sadr before the invasion? NO, so US has created his resistance
himself.



Qman

Scott Ferrin wrote:

I don't seem to recall any
Japanese terrorists behind the wheel on 9-11. I don't recall there
being a band of Brazilians in '93.


Scott, you sound like 10 year old, stop it.


And get the grip on "terrorism", US has great responsibility that such a
thing ever exists as it is. Admit it.


Qman