On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:57:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Not to start a debate but it seems your definition of what a "Barrel
Bomb" is differs considerably from what the common definition is.
The MOAB recently used is far from being a "Barrel bomb".

Here's Wiki's definition of a barrel bomb:

"A barrel bomb is an improvised unguided bomb, sometimes described as a
flying IED (improvised explosive device). They are typically made from a
large barrel-shaped metal container that has been filled with high
explosives, possibly shrapnel, oil or chemicals as well, and then
dropped from a helicopter or airplane.[1] Due to the large amount of
explosives (up 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb)), their poor accuracy and
indiscriminate use in populated civilian areas (including refugee
camps), the resulting detonations have been devastating.[2][3][4]
Critics have characterised them as weapons of terror and illegal under
international conventions".

I don't know why you think the MOAB use is a "barrel bomb".

The only real difference I see is the MOAB has minimal shrapnel and it
has a guidance package. (except for the bloated cost) It is still a
big, brute force bomb that is little more than a large container of
explosives. Harry is right when he says when we use something it is a
precision munition weapon and when they use it, we call it a terror
weapon. Since this was developed in the "shock and awe" days, the
distinction is blurry. What is the difference between "shock and awe"
and "terror"?
I am not saying these guys don't need killing but I am not going to
sugar coat the act of doing it.

On 4/15/2017 10:26 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:57:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Not to start a debate but it seems your definition of what a "Barrel
Bomb" is differs considerably from what the common definition is.
The MOAB recently used is far from being a "Barrel bomb".

Here's Wiki's definition of a barrel bomb:

"A barrel bomb is an improvised unguided bomb, sometimes described as a
flying IED (improvised explosive device). They are typically made from a
large barrel-shaped metal container that has been filled with high
explosives, possibly shrapnel, oil or chemicals as well, and then
dropped from a helicopter or airplane.[1] Due to the large amount of
explosives (up 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb)), their poor accuracy and
indiscriminate use in populated civilian areas (including refugee
camps), the resulting detonations have been devastating.[2][3][4]
Critics have characterised them as weapons of terror and illegal under
international conventions".

I don't know why you think the MOAB use is a "barrel bomb".

The only real difference I see is the MOAB has minimal shrapnel and it
has a guidance package. (except for the bloated cost) It is still a
big, brute force bomb that is little more than a large container of
explosives. Harry is right when he says when we use something it is a
precision munition weapon and when they use it, we call it a terror
weapon. Since this was developed in the "shock and awe" days, the
distinction is blurry. What is the difference between "shock and awe"
and "terror"?
I am not saying these guys don't need killing but I am not going to
sugar coat the act of doing it.



I suppose you have a much better solution to clearing the caves and
tunnels. Or, would you just put your head back in the sand and let them
be?

It wasn't Trump who made the decision to use a MOAB. Hell, he probably
didn't even know we had them. It was the General in charge of
operations in Afghanistan who made that decision and, according to other
experts he made the right call.

Even the Dems are reluctantly applauding it's use. We've been screwing
around playing with drones for far too long that take out a pickup truck
and a couple of dudes at a time.

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:47:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 10:26 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:57:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Not to start a debate but it seems your definition of what a "Barrel
Bomb" is differs considerably from what the common definition is.
The MOAB recently used is far from being a "Barrel bomb".

Here's Wiki's definition of a barrel bomb:

"A barrel bomb is an improvised unguided bomb, sometimes described as a
flying IED (improvised explosive device). They are typically made from a
large barrel-shaped metal container that has been filled with high
explosives, possibly shrapnel, oil or chemicals as well, and then
dropped from a helicopter or airplane.[1] Due to the large amount of
explosives (up 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb)), their poor accuracy and
indiscriminate use in populated civilian areas (including refugee
camps), the resulting detonations have been devastating.[2][3][4]
Critics have characterised them as weapons of terror and illegal under
international conventions".

I don't know why you think the MOAB use is a "barrel bomb".

The only real difference I see is the MOAB has minimal shrapnel and it
has a guidance package. (except for the bloated cost) It is still a
big, brute force bomb that is little more than a large container of
explosives. Harry is right when he says when we use something it is a
precision munition weapon and when they use it, we call it a terror
weapon. Since this was developed in the "shock and awe" days, the
distinction is blurry. What is the difference between "shock and awe"
and "terror"?
I am not saying these guys don't need killing but I am not going to
sugar coat the act of doing it.



I suppose you have a much better solution to clearing the caves and
tunnels. Or, would you just put your head back in the sand and let them
be?

A better solution would be a policy that did not have them so ****ed
at us. Killing terrorists has just bred more terrorists. Nothing
motivates a person to fight more than seeing a family member killed by
a foreigner.

It wasn't Trump who made the decision to use a MOAB. Hell, he probably
didn't even know we had them. It was the General in charge of
operations in Afghanistan who made that decision and, according to other
experts he made the right call.

I never said it was Trump's idea but I am sure they knew he would like
it. I still doubt this was a theater commander who made the final
decision.

Even the Dems are reluctantly applauding it's use. We've been screwing
around playing with drones for far too long that take out a pickup truck
and a couple of dudes at a time.

We have had drone strikes that killed a few dozen people ... as long
as you include friends and family in the body count. As we found out
in Vietnam, body counts do not win wars, they just make "news".

On 4/15/2017 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:47:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 10:26 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:57:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Not to start a debate but it seems your definition of what a "Barrel
Bomb" is differs considerably from what the common definition is.
The MOAB recently used is far from being a "Barrel bomb".

Here's Wiki's definition of a barrel bomb:

"A barrel bomb is an improvised unguided bomb, sometimes described as a
flying IED (improvised explosive device). They are typically made from a
large barrel-shaped metal container that has been filled with high
explosives, possibly shrapnel, oil or chemicals as well, and then
dropped from a helicopter or airplane.[1] Due to the large amount of
explosives (up 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb)), their poor accuracy and
indiscriminate use in populated civilian areas (including refugee
camps), the resulting detonations have been devastating.[2][3][4]
Critics have characterised them as weapons of terror and illegal under
international conventions".

I don't know why you think the MOAB use is a "barrel bomb".

The only real difference I see is the MOAB has minimal shrapnel and it
has a guidance package. (except for the bloated cost) It is still a
big, brute force bomb that is little more than a large container of
explosives. Harry is right when he says when we use something it is a
precision munition weapon and when they use it, we call it a terror
weapon. Since this was developed in the "shock and awe" days, the
distinction is blurry. What is the difference between "shock and awe"
and "terror"?
I am not saying these guys don't need killing but I am not going to
sugar coat the act of doing it.



I suppose you have a much better solution to clearing the caves and
tunnels. Or, would you just put your head back in the sand and let them
be?

A better solution would be a policy that did not have them so ****ed
at us. Killing terrorists has just bred more terrorists. Nothing
motivates a person to fight more than seeing a family member killed by
a foreigner.


Wow. So you think we could have a policy that doesn't **** off
religiously motivated terrorists who demand that you either convert or
lose your head? If you do, please run for POTUS.



It wasn't Trump who made the decision to use a MOAB. Hell, he probably
didn't even know we had them. It was the General in charge of
operations in Afghanistan who made that decision and, according to other
experts he made the right call.


I never said it was Trump's idea but I am sure they knew he would like
it. I still doubt this was a theater commander who made the final
decision.


I guess then that virtually every media report, liberal or conservative,
all have it wrong, but you have it right. If Trump didn't authorize
it's use and his theater commander didn't authorize it's use, then who
the hell *did*?. Some enlisted airforce dude on KP duty?