Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

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".

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/17 7:57 AM, 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".

Isn't it amazing how *their* weapons are weapons of terror and our
weapons, which also kill innocent civilians, aren't. Our weapons must be
weapons of peace.

What a crock of crap you militarists try to sell.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/2017 8:23 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 7:57 AM, 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".

Isn't it amazing how *their* weapons are weapons of terror and our
weapons, which also kill innocent civilians, aren't. Our weapons must be
weapons of peace.

What a crock of crap you militarists try to sell.


Ok. Let's just all hold hands and sing peace songs. Maybe the
terrorists and brutal dictators in the world will lose interest and join
in. That's ticket!

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/17 10:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 8:23 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 7:57 AM, 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".

Isn't it amazing how *their* weapons are weapons of terror and our
weapons, which also kill innocent civilians, aren't. Our weapons must be
weapons of peace.

What a crock of crap you militarists try to sell.


Ok. Let's just all hold hands and sing peace songs. Maybe the
terrorists and brutal dictators in the world will lose interest and join
in. That's ticket!





That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

9:09 AMMr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
Ok. Let's just all hold hands and sing peace songs. Maybe the
terrorists and brutal dictators in the world will lose interest and join
in. That's ticket!

....,

Great idea! I just got a new pack of d'Adario's for my 12 string! Time to put em on.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

9:20 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.
.....

Help stop the US bombing madness Harry. Go over and volunteer to be a human shield...

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

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.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:20:03 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:



That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.

War in general tends to affect the innocents the most. The Union army
was one of the first to use that tactic in our history. WWII was the
first war where all sides intentionally targeted civilians although it
started in the Spanish Civil war with the bombing of cities. I suppose
all civil wars involve killing civilians when you get down to it.
WWII was the real turning point though. The first bombing of London is
widely believed to be an accident but after that, it was on. Terror
attacks on cities became the norm. The US put a sharp point on it when
we nuked two with minimal military value but the die was cast before
that.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/2017 10:20 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 10:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 8:23 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 7:57 AM, 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".

Isn't it amazing how *their* weapons are weapons of terror and our
weapons, which also kill innocent civilians, aren't. Our weapons must be
weapons of peace.

What a crock of crap you militarists try to sell.


Ok. Let's just all hold hands and sing peace songs. Maybe the
terrorists and brutal dictators in the world will lose interest and join
in. That's ticket!





That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.


Yup. It's a sad commentary to war. The USA does it's best to avoid
collateral damage which is one reason why we almost exclusively use
precision guided munitions now-a-days. The other reason is they are
accurate, so there's a higher probability of doing the job without
having to lob hundreds of thousands of bombs to accomplish the same
thing. It's called progress.

We also don't intentionally target civilians or areas of high civilian
population. Our adversaries use this to their advantage by surrounding
their areas of operations with innocent civilians.

And then there are those who intentionally gas civilian population
areas, suffocating people including infants and then claim all the
videos made of their suffering were done by actors and produced by the
USA.

We also don't follow up an attack like that by bombing the hospital that
the injured and suffering were being treated.

Gezus. Don't you ever get disgusted by what our adversaries do? Or are
you only disgusted by what we do in retaliation ... in this case on
humanitarian grounds?

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

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.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/2017 11:40 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:20:03 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:



That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.

War in general tends to affect the innocents the most. The Union army
was one of the first to use that tactic in our history. WWII was the
first war where all sides intentionally targeted civilians although it
started in the Spanish Civil war with the bombing of cities. I suppose
all civil wars involve killing civilians when you get down to it.
WWII was the real turning point though. The first bombing of London is
widely believed to be an accident but after that, it was on. Terror
attacks on cities became the norm. The US put a sharp point on it when
we nuked two with minimal military value but the die was cast before
that.



My younger son and I were talking just this morning about the use of the
atomic bomb in WWII. He's a 35 year old college grad and I was really
surprised at how little he knew of some of the details of what led up to
and what was done in WWII. For his generation, this is all ancient
history. The conversation started because he told me he didn't think we
should have used the bomb on Japan.

He knew very little about what led up to Pearl Harbor. He didn't know
about oil embargos placed on the Japanese due to the horrific things
done to the Chinese by Japan. Nor was he aware of the torture done to
our own POW's during the war. The Japanese engaged in horrible war crimes.

He also didn't realize that until Roosevelt died, Truman didn't even
know of the Manhattan Project or the fact that we had developed the
bomb. He didn't know that we were only a few months ahead of Germany in
it's development.

To get an accurate and clear answer as to the use of the A-bomb on
Japan, go ask a surviving WWII vet .... or even a senior civilian who
was an adult at the time.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/17 11:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:20 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 10:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 8:23 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 7:57 AM, 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".

Isn't it amazing how *their* weapons are weapons of terror and our
weapons, which also kill innocent civilians, aren't. Our weapons
must be
weapons of peace.

What a crock of crap you militarists try to sell.


Ok. Let's just all hold hands and sing peace songs. Maybe the
terrorists and brutal dictators in the world will lose interest and join
in. That's ticket!





That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.


Yup. It's a sad commentary to war. The USA does it's best to avoid
collateral damage which is one reason why we almost exclusively use
precision guided munitions now-a-days. The other reason is they are
accurate, so there's a higher probability of doing the job without
having to lob hundreds of thousands of bombs to accomplish the same
thing. It's called progress.

We also don't intentionally target civilians or areas of high civilian
population. Our adversaries use this to their advantage by surrounding
their areas of operations with innocent civilians.

And then there are those who intentionally gas civilian population
areas, suffocating people including infants and then claim all the
videos made of their suffering were done by actors and produced by the USA.

We also don't follow up an attack like that by bombing the hospital that
the injured and suffering were being treated.

Gezus. Don't you ever get disgusted by what our adversaries do? Or are
you only disgusted by what we do in retaliation ... in this case on
humanitarian grounds?





I'm disgusted by attempts to claim the high moral ground for activities
that aren't that all different from the activities of our adversaries. I
have no moral objections to the missile attack on the Syrian air base or
the big bomb dropped on the Afghanistan tunnel...but I don't think
they'll resolve anything...they're just a waste of money and lives.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

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".

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:06:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 11:40 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:20:03 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:



That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.

War in general tends to affect the innocents the most. The Union army
was one of the first to use that tactic in our history. WWII was the
first war where all sides intentionally targeted civilians although it
started in the Spanish Civil war with the bombing of cities. I suppose
all civil wars involve killing civilians when you get down to it.
WWII was the real turning point though. The first bombing of London is
widely believed to be an accident but after that, it was on. Terror
attacks on cities became the norm. The US put a sharp point on it when
we nuked two with minimal military value but the die was cast before
that.



My younger son and I were talking just this morning about the use of the
atomic bomb in WWII. He's a 35 year old college grad and I was really
surprised at how little he knew of some of the details of what led up to
and what was done in WWII. For his generation, this is all ancient
history. The conversation started because he told me he didn't think we
should have used the bomb on Japan.

He knew very little about what led up to Pearl Harbor. He didn't know
about oil embargos placed on the Japanese due to the horrific things
done to the Chinese by Japan. Nor was he aware of the torture done to
our own POW's during the war. The Japanese engaged in horrible war crimes.

He also didn't realize that until Roosevelt died, Truman didn't even
know of the Manhattan Project or the fact that we had developed the
bomb. He didn't know that we were only a few months ahead of Germany in
it's development.

To get an accurate and clear answer as to the use of the A-bomb on
Japan, go ask a surviving WWII vet .... or even a senior civilian who
was an adult at the time.

If you are saying nuking a non-military target made us feel better
about the inhumane things the japs did in the war, I agree. When I
watch those old documentaries, I want to nuke the *******s again but
lets not confuse vengeance with military necessity.
Our bombing during the war was as much a terror tactic as a military
one. It wasn't even particularly effective. The Germans still had a
very impressive weapons production rate going until we actually
started putting soldiers on the ground in Germany.
We had been bombing them for a years when the V-1, V-2 and ME-262 were
built and deployed.
On the other side I only have to point at Russia. In spite of a siege,
bombing, famine and general terror going on in Leningrad, they still
had tanks rolling off the line a few miles away.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/2017 12:34 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 11:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:20 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 10:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 8:23 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 7:57 AM, 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".

Isn't it amazing how *their* weapons are weapons of terror and our
weapons, which also kill innocent civilians, aren't. Our weapons
must be
weapons of peace.

What a crock of crap you militarists try to sell.


Ok. Let's just all hold hands and sing peace songs. Maybe the
terrorists and brutal dictators in the world will lose interest and
join
in. That's ticket!





That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.


Yup. It's a sad commentary to war. The USA does it's best to avoid
collateral damage which is one reason why we almost exclusively use
precision guided munitions now-a-days. The other reason is they are
accurate, so there's a higher probability of doing the job without
having to lob hundreds of thousands of bombs to accomplish the same
thing. It's called progress.

We also don't intentionally target civilians or areas of high civilian
population. Our adversaries use this to their advantage by surrounding
their areas of operations with innocent civilians.

And then there are those who intentionally gas civilian population
areas, suffocating people including infants and then claim all the
videos made of their suffering were done by actors and produced by the
USA.

We also don't follow up an attack like that by bombing the hospital that
the injured and suffering were being treated.

Gezus. Don't you ever get disgusted by what our adversaries do? Or are
you only disgusted by what we do in retaliation ... in this case on
humanitarian grounds?





I'm disgusted by attempts to claim the high moral ground for activities
that aren't that all different from the activities of our adversaries. I
have no moral objections to the missile attack on the Syrian air base or
the big bomb dropped on the Afghanistan tunnel...but I don't think
they'll resolve anything...they're just a waste of money and lives.


Has the crazy fat kid set off his nuke yet?

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

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?

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/2017 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:06:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 11:40 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:20:03 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:



That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.

War in general tends to affect the innocents the most. The Union army
was one of the first to use that tactic in our history. WWII was the
first war where all sides intentionally targeted civilians although it
started in the Spanish Civil war with the bombing of cities. I suppose
all civil wars involve killing civilians when you get down to it.
WWII was the real turning point though. The first bombing of London is
widely believed to be an accident but after that, it was on. Terror
attacks on cities became the norm. The US put a sharp point on it when
we nuked two with minimal military value but the die was cast before
that.



My younger son and I were talking just this morning about the use of the
atomic bomb in WWII. He's a 35 year old college grad and I was really
surprised at how little he knew of some of the details of what led up to
and what was done in WWII. For his generation, this is all ancient
history. The conversation started because he told me he didn't think we
should have used the bomb on Japan.

He knew very little about what led up to Pearl Harbor. He didn't know
about oil embargos placed on the Japanese due to the horrific things
done to the Chinese by Japan. Nor was he aware of the torture done to
our own POW's during the war. The Japanese engaged in horrible war crimes.

He also didn't realize that until Roosevelt died, Truman didn't even
know of the Manhattan Project or the fact that we had developed the
bomb. He didn't know that we were only a few months ahead of Germany in
it's development.

To get an accurate and clear answer as to the use of the A-bomb on
Japan, go ask a surviving WWII vet .... or even a senior civilian who
was an adult at the time.

If you are saying nuking a non-military target made us feel better
about the inhumane things the japs did in the war, I agree. When I
watch those old documentaries, I want to nuke the *******s again but
lets not confuse vengeance with military necessity.
Our bombing during the war was as much a terror tactic as a military
one. It wasn't even particularly effective. The Germans still had a
very impressive weapons production rate going until we actually
started putting soldiers on the ground in Germany.
We had been bombing them for a years when the V-1, V-2 and ME-262 were
built and deployed.
On the other side I only have to point at Russia. In spite of a siege,
bombing, famine and general terror going on in Leningrad, they still
had tanks rolling off the line a few miles away.



All I am saying is anyone involved in WWII, military or civilian back
home, welcomed any opportunity to finally end the wars, even if it was
only by a day or two. The nation was desperate for the war to end but
the Japanese culture did not allow for surrender. It's us, the
following generation and the next that start questioning if it was right
to drop the A-bombs, but we are nothing but Monday morning quarterbacks.
None of us can put ourselves in our previous generation's shoes,
regardless of how much we read about it.

And I totally disagree with your terror tactic versus military. Indeed,
the bombing of Japan was purely a terror tactic to convince the Japanese
to surrender. You've already acknowledged that LeMay had half of Japan
burning anyway but they still wouldn't quit. He also regularly dropped
millions of leaflets warning Japanese citizens of impending bombings.
There is debate if a warning about the two A-bombs was given however.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/17 2:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 12:34 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 11:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:20 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 10:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 8:23 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 7:57 AM, 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".

Isn't it amazing how *their* weapons are weapons of terror and our
weapons, which also kill innocent civilians, aren't. Our weapons
must be
weapons of peace.

What a crock of crap you militarists try to sell.


Ok. Let's just all hold hands and sing peace songs. Maybe the
terrorists and brutal dictators in the world will lose interest and
join
in. That's ticket!





That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.


Yup. It's a sad commentary to war. The USA does it's best to avoid
collateral damage which is one reason why we almost exclusively use
precision guided munitions now-a-days. The other reason is they are
accurate, so there's a higher probability of doing the job without
having to lob hundreds of thousands of bombs to accomplish the same
thing. It's called progress.

We also don't intentionally target civilians or areas of high civilian
population. Our adversaries use this to their advantage by surrounding
their areas of operations with innocent civilians.

And then there are those who intentionally gas civilian population
areas, suffocating people including infants and then claim all the
videos made of their suffering were done by actors and produced by the
USA.

We also don't follow up an attack like that by bombing the hospital that
the injured and suffering were being treated.

Gezus. Don't you ever get disgusted by what our adversaries do? Or are
you only disgusted by what we do in retaliation ... in this case on
humanitarian grounds?





I'm disgusted by attempts to claim the high moral ground for activities
that aren't that all different from the activities of our adversaries. I
have no moral objections to the missile attack on the Syrian air base or
the big bomb dropped on the Afghanistan tunnel...but I don't think
they'll resolve anything...they're just a waste of money and lives.


Has the crazy fat kid set off his nuke yet?

Do you mean Trump or the North Korean version of Trump?

Your boy Trump certainly is goading him into it...

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On 4/15/2017 2:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 2:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 12:34 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 11:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:20 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 10:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 8:23 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 7:57 AM, 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".

Isn't it amazing how *their* weapons are weapons of terror and our
weapons, which also kill innocent civilians, aren't. Our weapons
must be
weapons of peace.

What a crock of crap you militarists try to sell.


Ok. Let's just all hold hands and sing peace songs. Maybe the
terrorists and brutal dictators in the world will lose interest and
join
in. That's ticket!





That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.


Yup. It's a sad commentary to war. The USA does it's best to avoid
collateral damage which is one reason why we almost exclusively use
precision guided munitions now-a-days. The other reason is they are
accurate, so there's a higher probability of doing the job without
having to lob hundreds of thousands of bombs to accomplish the same
thing. It's called progress.

We also don't intentionally target civilians or areas of high civilian
population. Our adversaries use this to their advantage by surrounding
their areas of operations with innocent civilians.

And then there are those who intentionally gas civilian population
areas, suffocating people including infants and then claim all the
videos made of their suffering were done by actors and produced by the
USA.

We also don't follow up an attack like that by bombing the hospital
that
the injured and suffering were being treated.

Gezus. Don't you ever get disgusted by what our adversaries do? Or
are
you only disgusted by what we do in retaliation ... in this case on
humanitarian grounds?





I'm disgusted by attempts to claim the high moral ground for activities
that aren't that all different from the activities of our adversaries. I
have no moral objections to the missile attack on the Syrian air base or
the big bomb dropped on the Afghanistan tunnel...but I don't think
they'll resolve anything...they're just a waste of money and lives.


Has the crazy fat kid set off his nuke yet?

Do you mean Trump or the North Korean version of Trump?

Your boy Trump certainly is goading him into it...


Kinda like Dirty Harry. "Go ahead, punk. Make my day". :-)

Personally, I *think* (but certainly don't know) that as soon as he
got home the Chinese president got on the horn with the fat kid and
told him to "Cool it!. Trump's nuts".

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:06:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 11:40 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:20:03 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:



That's not the point. We also kill lots of innocent civilians.

War in general tends to affect the innocents the most. The Union army
was one of the first to use that tactic in our history. WWII was the
first war where all sides intentionally targeted civilians although it
started in the Spanish Civil war with the bombing of cities. I suppose
all civil wars involve killing civilians when you get down to it.
WWII was the real turning point though. The first bombing of London is
widely believed to be an accident but after that, it was on. Terror
attacks on cities became the norm. The US put a sharp point on it when
we nuked two with minimal military value but the die was cast before
that.



My younger son and I were talking just this morning about the use of the
atomic bomb in WWII. He's a 35 year old college grad and I was really
surprised at how little he knew of some of the details of what led up to
and what was done in WWII. For his generation, this is all ancient
history. The conversation started because he told me he didn't think we
should have used the bomb on Japan.

He knew very little about what led up to Pearl Harbor. He didn't know
about oil embargos placed on the Japanese due to the horrific things
done to the Chinese by Japan. Nor was he aware of the torture done to
our own POW's during the war. The Japanese engaged in horrible war crimes.

He also didn't realize that until Roosevelt died, Truman didn't even
know of the Manhattan Project or the fact that we had developed the
bomb. He didn't know that we were only a few months ahead of Germany in
it's development.

To get an accurate and clear answer as to the use of the A-bomb on
Japan, go ask a surviving WWII vet .... or even a senior civilian who
was an adult at the time.

If you are saying nuking a non-military target made us feel better
about the inhumane things the japs did in the war, I agree. When I
watch those old documentaries, I want to nuke the *******s again but
lets not confuse vengeance with military necessity.
Our bombing during the war was as much a terror tactic as a military
one. It wasn't even particularly effective. The Germans still had a
very impressive weapons production rate going until we actually
started putting soldiers on the ground in Germany.
We had been bombing them for a years when the V-1, V-2 and ME-262 were
built and deployed.
On the other side I only have to point at Russia. In spite of a siege,
bombing, famine and general terror going on in Leningrad, they still
had tanks rolling off the line a few miles away.



All I am saying is anyone involved in WWII, military or civilian back
home, welcomed any opportunity to finally end the wars, even if it was
only by a day or two. The nation was desperate for the war to end but
the Japanese culture did not allow for surrender. It's us, the
following generation and the next that start questioning if it was right
to drop the A-bombs, but we are nothing but Monday morning quarterbacks.
None of us can put ourselves in our previous generation's shoes,
regardless of how much we read about it.

And I totally disagree with your terror tactic versus military. Indeed,
the bombing of Japan was purely a terror tactic to convince the Japanese
to surrender. You've already acknowledged that LeMay had half of Japan
burning anyway but they still wouldn't quit. He also regularly dropped
millions of leaflets warning Japanese citizens of impending bombings.
There is debate if a warning about the two A-bombs was given however.


My uncle spent 4 years in the South Pacific as a shooter. Went to
Guadalcanal under the first blackout of WW2. Woke up the day the Japanese
surrendered in a Philippine hospital from a grenade induced coma. He
figured "The Bomb" saved his life. As he a would have had to fight on the
home island of Japan, and at least 150,000 US soldiers would have died. He
said the worse thing that would happen would have been a prisoner of the
Japanese. So pretty much a no quarter fight. When he arrived in
Guadalcanal there were still marines strapped to posts that had been used
for bayonet practice.

Greg: re Barrel Bombs
 

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:27:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


All I am saying is anyone involved in WWII, military or civilian back
home, welcomed any opportunity to finally end the wars, even if it was
only by a day or two. The nation was desperate for the war to end but
the Japanese culture did not allow for surrender. It's us, the
following generation and the next that start questioning if it was right
to drop the A-bombs, but we are nothing but Monday morning quarterbacks.
None of us can put ourselves in our previous generation's shoes,
regardless of how much we read about it.

And I totally disagree with your terror tactic versus military. Indeed,
the bombing of Japan was purely a terror tactic to convince the Japanese
to surrender. You've already acknowledged that LeMay had half of Japan
burning anyway but they still wouldn't quit. He also regularly dropped
millions of leaflets warning Japanese citizens of impending bombings.
There is debate if a warning about the two A-bombs was given however.

People are ignoring the fact that the other thing that changed in
August 45 was that the US changed the terms of the surrender and let
them keep their emperor. If we had pitched that in July, who knows?
MacArthur has written about that.