Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president

In message , William Black
writes
"La N" wrote in message
news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?

I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
culture of the people on their side that they're killing.

The locals fire small-arms into the air at some celebrations. This is
hardly a shocking surprise. Deal with it.

This ought to be a compulsory part of RSOI, along with a proper threat
brief about what does and does not kill aircraft in theatre.
(Spray-and-pray small arms fire hasn't clocked up many kills anywhere,
even for fast jets flying low enough for it to reach)


The USAF has earned itself a reputation, though. I recall one 2005
incident where a company of infantry - over a hundred troops, a dozen
big armoured vehicles and more soft-skinned transport, lots of kit and
signature - came under fire from an AC-130 which claimed that (a) the
range should have been cleared for it so the infantry shouldn't have
been there and (b) after meticulous examination it didn't see _anyone_
on the ground so thought it could fire freely.

(a) is a procedural or administrative problem. (b) says that the vaunted
sensors either weren't all that or actually weren't checked. (Strangely,
the recordings from the AC-130 were irretrievably mislaid before the
inquiry)



--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

William Black wrote:
"La N" wrote in message
news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
"William Black" wrote in message
...
"La N" wrote in message
news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
"tankfixer" wrote in message
Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
A most absurd statement IMHO.


It is indeed an absurd statement.

So why are they still bombing weddings?

Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?


I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
culture of the people on their side that they're killing.


How many weddings has the U.S. actually struck?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , William Black
writes
"La N" wrote in message
news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?

I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
culture of the people on their side that they're killing.

The locals fire small-arms into the air at some celebrations. This is hardly
a shocking surprise. Deal with it.

This ought to be a compulsory part of RSOI, along with a proper threat brief
about what does and does not kill aircraft in theatre. (Spray-and-pray small
arms fire hasn't clocked up many kills anywhere, even for fast jets flying
low enough for it to reach)


The USAF has earned itself a reputation, though. I recall one 2005 incident
where a company of infantry - over a hundred troops, a dozen big armoured
vehicles and more soft-skinned transport, lots of kit and signature - came
under fire from an AC-130 which claimed that (a) the range should have been
cleared for it so the infantry shouldn't have been there and (b) after
meticulous examination it didn't see _anyone_ on the ground so thought it
could fire freely.

(a) is a procedural or administrative problem. (b) says that the vaunted
sensors either weren't all that or actually weren't checked. (Strangely, the
recordings from the AC-130 were irretrievably mislaid before the inquiry)

The whole Tarnak Farm affair back in '02 is similar. The Pats filed the
appropriate plan announcing that they were training, and the f***ers drafting
the ASOI never passed it on. **** me! Staff wienies killed soldiers through
negligence.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

In article ,
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...

Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done with
it.

Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.

Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in
Maharashtra
and
Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India gets
reunified...


They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.


They can't hit them with nukes.

IIRC Goa is a major seaport.
Should be easy to get one there.

Goa is an Indian state with a population in millions.

Yes.
But in this context we are talking Indian military bases are we not ?


There in a major Indian navy fleet base in Goa, but somehow I doubt the
ability of the Pakistani armed forces to smuggle an atomic bomb into it.

In any case it's not the only major base the Indian navy has on that
coast,
there's the huge one in Bombay.

Merchant ships travel many places...

Into large naval bases?

Surely the port is more than a naval base.
Having been a major port into India for thousands of years.



I suppose you have some proof that any nuclear state has ever considered
such a delivery system?

Sure, most nuclear states use ships as a delivery method.



--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

In article ,
says...

"La N" wrote in message
news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"La N" wrote in message
news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...

"tankfixer" wrote in message

Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
A most absurd statement IMHO.



It is indeed an absurd statement.


So why are they still bombing weddings?


Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?


I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
culture of the people on their side that they're killing.

I'd say your wrong.
There are any number of training publications stressing the need to
understand the culture in both Iraq and Afghanistan.


See:
ENGAGING AFGHANISTAN?THE MULLAH CONNECTION
by: CHAPLAIN (COLONEL) KENNETH L. SAMPSON
U.S. Army War College
CARLISLE BARRACKS

TRADOC DCSINT HANDBOOK NO. 2


That's two of the 101 documents CALL listed under
Cultual awareness.


--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

On Aug 17, 9:22*pm, Dan wrote:
William Black wrote:
"La N" wrote in message
news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
"William Black" wrote in message
...
"La N" wrote in message
news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
"tankfixer" wrote in message
Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
A most absurd statement IMHO.

It is indeed an absurd statement.

So why are they still bombing weddings?

Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
weddings? *What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?

I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
culture of the people on their side that they're killing.

* * How many weddings has the U.S. actually struck?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Good question, at least a few dozen. Thing is, WE know its not
intentional, THEY don't. All they know is they had a wedding and the
Americans bombed it. Then claimed it was terrorists or whatever. There
might have even been a terrorist there. But, most was collateral
damage. And the consequence is, we lost the hearts and minds. Did that
in another war as I recall.

We can do better than that.

I think the whole truth on the mess has not come out, and I think that
once the truth does come out, and its going to be way after we're
gone, its not going to be pretty.

Some of the Marine Air Wings have dumped tons of ordinance on some
cities. There was one report that was sort of hushed up of a million
pounds of ordinance by one Wing. Think of where you live. Think of
AC-130s hitting it. Or a bunch of 500 lb bombs going in. That's a lot
of damage in an urban area. I've seen stuff go in real time. I can't
see any reason to dump it on an urban area. Period.

We did it in WWII, we hit military targets. It wasn't until later that
we started pretty much carpet bombing of large areas.

I've seen some of the after action bomb plots on the amount of damage
done in Japanese cities, percentages destroyed. Yeah, war is hell.
Yeah, we were breaking the back of an evil empire. But that is a lot
different than Iraq where we're supposed to be bringing in Democracy.

Christ, we're as bad as the RAF using chemical weapons on the Iraqi
tribes. And they did tons of that in the 20s. Still lost.

Look, we had the Turks shut down water to Iraq (and there's a whole
wealth of information that is just coming out in the states - google
Aaronson (sp?) who mapped water resources in the Middle East and how
it would reduce conflict IF the borders were defined correctly - they
weren't). That in part led to a ton of deaths the US refuses to
acknowledge. Lots of other countries and NGOs do.

The Iraqis were the most educated group in the Middle East. They know
whats going on over there, we don't. And its the media, Bush, DoD that
are to blame. Bluntly, not only are we going broke propping up a lie
promulgated by Bush, we're also committing war crimes.

Don't believe me? Read the laws of ground conflict, read the laws of
war. You can find copies cheap in most bookstores.

Part of being a military professional is having a sense of ethics. We
seem to have lost that somehow.

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...

Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done
with
it.

Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.

Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in
Maharashtra
and
Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India
gets
reunified...


They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.


They can't hit them with nukes.

IIRC Goa is a major seaport.
Should be easy to get one there.

Goa is an Indian state with a population in millions.

Yes.
But in this context we are talking Indian military bases are we not ?


There in a major Indian navy fleet base in Goa, but somehow I doubt
the
ability of the Pakistani armed forces to smuggle an atomic bomb into
it.

In any case it's not the only major base the Indian navy has on that
coast,
there's the huge one in Bombay.

Merchant ships travel many places...

Into large naval bases?

Surely the port is more than a naval base.

Seperate installations.

The Indian naval base in Goa is a new build.

Having been a major port into India for thousands of years.

Well no.

It was build by the Portuguese about 500 years ago.

Bombay, where the other big base is, was, famously, built in a malarial
swamp by the British.

The naval base there, built by the British, is a fair way from the docks.

Anyone blowing up a population centre of about 25 million people with an
atomic bomb had better be sure nobody's going to come around later with a
war crimes tribunal...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"La N" wrote in message
news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"La N" wrote in message
news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...

"tankfixer" wrote in message

Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
A most absurd statement IMHO.



It is indeed an absurd statement.


So why are they still bombing weddings?


Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad
p.r.?


I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
culture of the people on their side that they're killing.

I'd say your wrong.
There are any number of training publications stressing the need to
understand the culture in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

----------------

So why do they keep hitting weddings?

It's not beyond the wit of man to get some sort of weddings registration
system going, although if the government doesn't have anyone on the ground
that would be difficult...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Aug 17, 11:55 pm, tankfixer wrote:
In article ,
says...





"La N" wrote in message
news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"La N" wrote in message
news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...

"tankfixer" wrote in message

Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
A most absurd statement IMHO.

It is indeed an absurd statement.

So why are they still bombing weddings?

Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?

I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
culture of the people on their side that they're killing.

I'd say your wrong.
There are any number of training publications stressing the need to
understand the culture in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

See:
ENGAGING AFGHANISTAN?THE MULLAH CONNECTION
by: CHAPLAIN (COLONEL) KENNETH L. SAMPSON
U.S. Army War College
CARLISLE BARRACKS

TRADOC DCSINT HANDBOOK NO. 2

That's two of the 101 documents CALL listed under
Cultual awareness.

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

Have you ever been to one of those sessions? Third hand word says they
are time killers with no emphasis on paying attention or attendance.
Just mark in the book how many were there. "Cultual awareness" indeed

On Aug 17, 11:42 pm, tankfixer wrote:
In article ,
says...


Sure, most nuclear states use ships as a delivery method.



Cite? Name one.