Read 1984. Please for the love of liberty read 1984.
not again thank you.......your paranoia will be your undoing......our freedom of press and speech cancels out "big brother" . We have different news sources as well as a free internet. the Big Brother you fear simply can not exist in America. For example, they have been trying to figure out a way to impose a tax on the internet and e-mails in our country. They can not do it for 1 reason, any politican that values his job will not support it. The people in America are the rulers of our country. Any elected offical we think is out of hand is removed. We are all free thinkers, that is why we fight amoungst ourselves in our political arena.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Read 1984. Please for the love of liberty read 1984.
Besides that, from what I hear in London every square inch is video taped.......Within 30 minutes of the bombings a few years ago they had the suspects path all traced out......you seem no worse for the wear over you being watched.
They can track a person from one side of the city to another, by any mode of transportation. The problem is not that these powers exist, just that without proper regulation and consideration they can be abused. And for all the extra security after the first bombing they couldn't stop another set of bombers setting off another 4 explosions one week later, shame they showed they typical Al Qaeda MO of incompetence by not realising that last weeks bomb mix was now inert. (Remember they also cacked up the first bombing, they blatently wanted to set off a bomb underground at every point of the compass, but wouldn't you know it, the one of the tube lines wasn't running that morning).lowing wrote:
not again thank you.......your paranoia will be your undoing......our freedom of press and speech cancels out "big brother" . We have different news sources as well as a free internet. the Big Brother you fear simply can not exist in America. For example, they have been trying to figure out a way to impose a tax on the internet and e-mails in our country. They can not do it for 1 reason, any politican that values his job will not support it. The people in America are the rulers of our country. Any elected offical we think is out of hand is removed. We are all free thinkers, that is why we fight amoungst ourselves in our political arena.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Read 1984. Please for the love of liberty read 1984.
Besides that, from what I hear in London every square inch is video taped.......Within 30 minutes of the bombings a few years ago they had the suspects path all traced out......you seem no worse for the wear over you being watched.
The problem comes when even though you haven't committed any crimes or got anything to hide, Big Brother decides that your views on human rights, politics or religion are somehow bad for the party..... Or changes the definition of what bad is to include, for instance, every single Muslim in the country, even those who despise terrorism and believe it gives them a bad name....lowing wrote:
Even if big brother is watching.who cares.....If you don't have anything to hide you don't have any problems.
well then maybe it is time for the "peace loving" Muslims to stand up and denounce and fight the horrors that are being commited in their "good religions" name........Funny thing is....after 911 I can't remember a single story of outrage and disdain and riots over the victims of these attacks........I do recall vividly all of the outrage murder and riots all over the world over some dumb fuck cartoons.........If it is a stereotype that they are cast in, they are doing NOTHING to help themselves out of the bad light. this religion is NOT innocentUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
They can track a person from one side of the city to another, by any mode of transportation. The problem is not that these powers exist, just that without proper regulation and consideration they can be abused. And for all the extra security after the first bombing they couldn't stop another set of bombers setting off another 4 explosions one week later, shame they showed they typical Al Qaeda MO of incompetence by not realising that last weeks bomb mix was now inert. (Remember they also cacked up the first bombing, they blatently wanted to set off a bomb underground at every point of the compass, but wouldn't you know it, the one of the tube lines wasn't running that morning).lowing wrote:
not again thank you.......your paranoia will be your undoing......our freedom of press and speech cancels out "big brother" . We have different news sources as well as a free internet. the Big Brother you fear simply can not exist in America. For example, they have been trying to figure out a way to impose a tax on the internet and e-mails in our country. They can not do it for 1 reason, any politican that values his job will not support it. The people in America are the rulers of our country. Any elected offical we think is out of hand is removed. We are all free thinkers, that is why we fight amoungst ourselves in our political arena.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Read 1984. Please for the love of liberty read 1984.
Besides that, from what I hear in London every square inch is video taped.......Within 30 minutes of the bombings a few years ago they had the suspects path all traced out......you seem no worse for the wear over you being watched.The problem comes when even though you haven't committed any crimes or got anything to hide, Big Brother decides that your views on human rights, politics or religion are somehow bad for the party..... Or changes the definition of what bad is to include, for instance, every single Muslim in the country, even those who despise terrorism and believe it gives them a bad name....lowing wrote:
Even if big brother is watching.who cares.....If you don't have anything to hide you don't have any problems.
Well, we'd better start building some gas chambers then. <-- Now, that's sarcasm.lowing wrote:
well then maybe it is time for the "peace loving" Muslims to stand up and denounce and fight the horrors that are being commited in their "good religions" name........Funny thing is....after 911 I can't remember a single story of outrage and disdain and riots over the victims of these attacks........I do recall vividly all of the outrage murder and riots all over the world over some dumb fuck cartoons.........If it is a stereotype that they are cast in, they are doing NOTHING to help themselves out of the bad light. this religion is NOT innocent
Die Muslime Die
and you are referring toooooooo?????????????????UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Well, we'd better start building some gas chambers then. <-- Now, that's sarcasm.lowing wrote:
well then maybe it is time for the "peace loving" Muslims to stand up and denounce and fight the horrors that are being commited in their "good religions" name........Funny thing is....after 911 I can't remember a single story of outrage and disdain and riots over the victims of these attacks........I do recall vividly all of the outrage murder and riots all over the world over some dumb fuck cartoons.........If it is a stereotype that they are cast in, they are doing NOTHING to help themselves out of the bad light. this religion is NOT innocent
Although the smart bombs that actually are incredibly retarded don't help.whittsend wrote:
Um, you do know that the majority of those civilian casualties were caused by the Iraqi insurgents, and not by US troops, right?Spark wrote:
9000+ civilians have been killed in the WOT.
So in response to 3000 people dying, you decided to dish out 3 times as much!
USA!
It generally is agreeable to hit the COUNTRY you're aiming at.
For every insurgent/terrorist killed, a lot of civilians are also killed.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
If you listen daily, you will discover that, not only do the insurgents bomb more often, they tend to kill more (deliberately), than are killed (accidentally) by US collateral damage. Not a lot of US bombing is going on over there, and you practically need an act of Congress to get an artillery strike. Bombing done only when they have some intel on an enemy position, and they want to soften it up before they go in.Spark wrote:
Although the smart bombs that actually are incredibly retarded don't help.whittsend wrote:
Um, you do know that the majority of those civilian casualties were caused by the Iraqi insurgents, and not by US troops, right?Spark wrote:
9000+ civilians have been killed in the WOT.
So in response to 3000 people dying, you decided to dish out 3 times as much!
USA!
It generally is agreeable to hit the COUNTRY you're aiming at.
For every insurgent/terrorist killed, a lot of civilians are also killed.
In any case, the smart bombs are VERY accuate. The reason you get collateral damage is because of the size of the bomb, not because they missd the target. You almost never hear, "10 civilians killed and no insurgents." It's usually more like, "3 insurgents killed and 10 civilians."
True that about airstrikes and smartbombs....they just dont happen over there unless its a big operation, maybe a few times when I was there for a year. But artillery was pretty common. I was attached to a FA unit and we called on a bunch of fire missions. Usually on an empty field next to known IED alleys and we always make sure civilians are out of harms way. We kill more civilians by road accidents than by actual gunfirewhittsend wrote:
If you listen daily, you will discover that, not only do the insurgents bomb more often, they tend to kill more (deliberately), than are killed (accidentally) by US collateral damage. Not a lot of US bombing is going on over there, and you practically need an act of Congress to get an artillery strike. Bombing done only when they have some intel on an enemy position, and they want to soften it up before they go in.Spark wrote:
Although the smart bombs that actually are incredibly retarded don't help.whittsend wrote:
Um, you do know that the majority of those civilian casualties were caused by the Iraqi insurgents, and not by US troops, right?
It generally is agreeable to hit the COUNTRY you're aiming at.
For every insurgent/terrorist killed, a lot of civilians are also killed.
In any case, the smart bombs are VERY accuate. The reason you get collateral damage is because of the size of the bomb, not because they missd the target. You almost never hear, "10 civilians killed and no insurgents." It's usually more like, "3 insurgents killed and 10 civilians."
Friends? or Allies... *ahem*the_heart_attack wrote:
dont forget america has friends.
Spark you are clearly out of your depth here. You must find something more suitable to do with your time.Spark wrote:
Although the smart bombs that actually are incredibly retarded don't help.whittsend wrote:
Um, you do know that the majority of those civilian casualties were caused by the Iraqi insurgents, and not by US troops, right?Spark wrote:
9000+ civilians have been killed in the WOT.
So in response to 3000 people dying, you decided to dish out 3 times as much!
USA!
It generally is agreeable to hit the COUNTRY you're aiming at.
For every insurgent/terrorist killed, a lot of civilians are also killed.
I say this as a freind.
That depends on the size of the country. If you're aiming at Belgium, for instance, I think it'll still be ok if you hit the Netherlands or Luxemburg.Spark wrote:
Although the smart bombs that actually are incredibly retarded don't help.whittsend wrote:
Um, you do know that the majority of those civilian casualties were caused by the Iraqi insurgents, and not by US troops, right?Spark wrote:
9000+ civilians have been killed in the WOT.
So in response to 3000 people dying, you decided to dish out 3 times as much!
USA!
It generally is agreeable to hit the COUNTRY you're aiming at.
I stand corrected. Gunslinger was there more recently than I was. I got home in August '04.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
But artillery was pretty common. I was attached to a FA unit and we called on a bunch of fire missions. Usually on an empty field next to known IED alleys and we always make sure civilians are out of harms way.
But these are bombs which are *supposed* to hit targets with >1m accuracy!Rosse_modest wrote:
That depends on the size of the country. If you're aiming at Belgium, for instance, I think it'll still be ok if you hit the Netherlands or Luxemburg.Spark wrote:
Although the smart bombs that actually are incredibly retarded don't help.whittsend wrote:
Um, you do know that the majority of those civilian casualties were caused by the Iraqi insurgents, and not by US troops, right?
It generally is agreeable to hit the COUNTRY you're aiming at.
Not >1km or >1000km!
How accurate are tomahawk missles btw? This is a pure question because I don't know (so ppl don't take it wrong)
Can anyone comment, however, on the choppers gunning down a whole group of women because they *looked* suspicious?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
This is a question out of curiosity, as I have no idea how the FA process works:
With a range of 22km, aren't you firing at GPS positions rather than visible targets? Does the fireteam get to see video feeds of the impact, or are they informed by radio? Would you know the difference if you had been given the position of a school and told it was an IED alley? I'm not implying any of this happened, I'm just curious to know how the process works to ensure there are no mistakes or civilian casulties.
With a range of 22km, aren't you firing at GPS positions rather than visible targets? Does the fireteam get to see video feeds of the impact, or are they informed by radio? Would you know the difference if you had been given the position of a school and told it was an IED alley? I'm not implying any of this happened, I'm just curious to know how the process works to ensure there are no mistakes or civilian casulties.
can you please point out the story in which a chopper ( I am assuming an American apache) gunned down a whole group of women??.....I ttry to keep up on current events but that one seems to have gotten by me.. thxSpark wrote:
But these are bombs which are *supposed* to hit targets with >1m accuracy!Rosse_modest wrote:
That depends on the size of the country. If you're aiming at Belgium, for instance, I think it'll still be ok if you hit the Netherlands or Luxemburg.Spark wrote:
Although the smart bombs that actually are incredibly retarded don't help.
It generally is agreeable to hit the COUNTRY you're aiming at.
Not >1km or >1000km!
How accurate are tomahawk missles btw? This is a pure question because I don't know (so ppl don't take it wrong)
Can anyone comment, however, on the choppers gunning down a whole group of women because they *looked* suspicious?
I've heard about the soldiers going nuts when their mate got killed and just randomly gunning down loads of innocent Iraqi civilians:lowing wrote:
can you please point out the story in which a chopper ( I am assuming an American apache) gunned down a whole group of women??.....I ttry to keep up on current events but that one seems to have gotten by me.. thxSpark wrote:
But these are bombs which are *supposed* to hit targets with >1m accuracy!Rosse_modest wrote:
That depends on the size of the country. If you're aiming at Belgium, for instance, I think it'll still be ok if you hit the Netherlands or Luxemburg.
Not >1km or >1000km!
How accurate are tomahawk missles btw? This is a pure question because I don't know (so ppl don't take it wrong)
Can anyone comment, however, on the choppers gunning down a whole group of women because they *looked* suspicious?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 827424.stm
You probably won't see that on the American news though, I can't seem to find it anyway:
http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&am … 20killings
It's no wonder the story gets a bit bent out of shape when a whole country relies on word of mouth or overseas news services to get the truth.
it is rare....i never saw it happen. We dont take shit out on civilians.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
I've heard about the soldiers going nuts when their mate got killed and just randomly gunning down loads of innocent Iraqi civilians:lowing wrote:
can you please point out the story in which a chopper ( I am assuming an American apache) gunned down a whole group of women??.....I ttry to keep up on current events but that one seems to have gotten by me.. thxSpark wrote:
But these are bombs which are *supposed* to hit targets with >1m accuracy!
Not >1km or >1000km!
How accurate are tomahawk missles btw? This is a pure question because I don't know (so ppl don't take it wrong)
Can anyone comment, however, on the choppers gunning down a whole group of women because they *looked* suspicious?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 827424.stm
You probably won't see that on the American news though, I can't seem to find it anyway:
http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&am … 20killings
It's no wonder the story gets a bit bent out of shape when a whole country relies on word of mouth or overseas news services to get the truth.
Abu Ghraib.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
it is rare....i never saw it happen. We dont take shit out on civilians.
like i said its rare, never saw it happen. 9 soldiers getting convicted when there were 150,000 in country at the time.....next.
and there not civilians!!!!!
Because the soldiers claimed the ones they tortured were enemy combatants, that makes it okay then, obviously.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
and there not civilians!!!!!
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
Most of the torture was done to the ones who claimed to be innocent so that they would confess to fighting against America, wasn't it? Are you saying that there is no chance that any of them were innocent, whatsoever?
Have you read the news article link I posted (assuming that the NSA doesn't block it or something)?
The issue wasn't whether every single soldier takes shit out on civilians, just whether there have been incidents where some have.
abu ghraib aint county jail where you await trial. It is a state prison filled with guilty mofos. but, my point that im trying to convey is not about abu ghraib, its the fact that all these abuses are rare and not common.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Because the soldiers claimed the ones they tortured were enemy combatants, that makes it okay then, obviously.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
and there not civilians!!!!!
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
Most of the torture was done to the ones who claimed to be innocent so that they would confess to fighting against America, wasn't it? Are you saying that there is no chance that any of them were innocent, whatsoever?
Have you read the news article link I posted (assuming that the NSA doesn't block it or something)?
The issue wasn't whether every single soldier takes shit out on civilians, just whether there have been incidents where some have.
The bombs can be dead on accurate and will cause collateral damage to surrounding structures, and quite possibly, kill people in the immediate area. Sucks, but it is the nature of the beast. The Kill radius on a 155mm artillery shell is, IIRC, something like 15 meters (Gunslinger, you know this better than me...is that about right?), and many of the smart bombs they use are much more powerful than that.Spark wrote:
But these are bombs which are *supposed* to hit targets with >1m accuracy!
Not >1km or >1000km!
Abu Ghraib: I delivered prisoners to Abu Ghraib from Al Anbar Province during the first year of the war. We didn't have a lot of resources back then, so there were two kinds of prisoners: The ones to whom we gave $100 bucks and a train ticket; and the ones who went to Abu Ghraib. There were a lot more of the former than the latter.
Abu was the central repository for all the NASTIEST motherfuckers in the country. Your guilt pretty much had to be a lock before you would be sent there, because they were taking prisoners from the whole country, and they had to be selective. If you went there, you were guilty, just like Gunslinger said.