Confederate Yankee
March 01, 2007
Standing on Their Own: The View From Amiriyat al Falluja
While much of the blogosphere today seems focused on John McCain's announcement that he's zzzzz... ah, um, running for President (and being a putz), or which side of the blogosphere is the most profane, and the "professional" media is glued to Anna Nicole Smith's burial plans, Reuters has produced a story about the war in Iraq that seems to be having a very difficult time finding the front page.
Iraqi security forces killed dozens of al Qaeda militants who attacked a village in western Anbar province on Wednesday, during fierce clashes that lasted much of the day, police officials said on Thursday.
Sunni tribal leaders are involved in an escalating power struggle with Sunni al Qaeda for control of Anbar, a vast desert province that is the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq.
Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul Karim Khalaf said foreign Arabs and Afghanis were among some 80 militants killed and 50 captured in the clashes in Amiriyat al Falluja, a village where local tribes had opposed al Qaeda.
A police official in the area, Ahmed al-Falluji, put the number of militants killed at 70, with three police killed.
If you read the
entire article, you'll note something that should be of great interest to readers here in the United States: when al Qaeda attacked the village, residents of this Anbar province town turned not to the U.S. military to take back their homes, but Iraqi security forces, and it was these Iraqi security forces,
with no U.S. military involvement at all, that crushed the al Qaeda attack.
Amiriyat al Falluja is only a small town in western Iraq, and it is by no measure the largest battle here in Anbar's past or future, but this battle still bears noting. Why? It is the embodiment of what both Democrats and Republicans should be hoping for in regards to the future of Iraq.
In this town, on this day, Iraqi soldiers and policemen fought a pitched battle against a sizable force of al Qaeda fighters, and
prevailed without our guidance, and without our intervention. They won this battle convincingly, standing on their own. What's more, the local citizens trusted them to be able to do so.
This is perhaps an isolated incident in an isolated corner of the western Iraqi desert, but it is, after all, exactly what we've hoped for. Iraqi policemen and soldiers came through for their fellow Iraqi citizens, and carried the day. We've been waiting for such news for four long years.
It's a shame that few of us in this country seem destined to ever hear about it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:03 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This sort of story is always downplayed, although it did make it to CNN. Most Iraq stories are leading with the Hard Landing story.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 01, 2007 04:10 PM (oC8nQ)
2
Confirming news of improving conditions is important. Al An Bar and Baghdad appear to be improving. We'll have to wait and see, though.
Posted by: CoRev at March 01, 2007 05:15 PM (Hr52v)
3
One step at a time, brother, one step at a time.
Two great points here, though. 1)As you mentioned the locals went to the Iraqi forces for help. This demonstrates the locals' confidence in their national forces. and 2)The Iraqi forces kicked butt. Working as a team to protect their homeland against Taliban scum.
oh yeah, almost forgot: And 3)They were trained by who?
Posted by: joated at March 01, 2007 08:01 PM (GQv1b)
4
Greetings,
Ah yes, days of ANS's disposal trial, Britney and the scalping, local car chases and liquor store thefts - that's all that is in the news recently.
Things must really be looking up overseas! Congrats to our Armed Services!
Regards,
Posted by: Mike at March 01, 2007 08:09 PM (1wv7D)
5
Hey, wait: isn't Reuters part of the MSM? Then the story must be a lie, right? Has anyone checked the sources? I'm wondering whether Qassim Moussawi actually exists. And isn't the end of his name kind of like Zarqawi's? That's pretty suspicious right there. Finally, the skintone on that girl "greeting American soldiers" looks mighty 'Shoppy to me.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 01, 2007 08:59 PM (WBf+B)
6
This story is great, but doesn't it show just how low the bar is? We're getting excited because Iraqis are defending themselves and each other against foreign terrorists, and taking responsibility for their own preservation. Baby steps.
Again, I don't want to downplay this (like I just did, I guess) but while The Awakening is good for us and bad for AQ, it doesn't make us all drinking buddies once the smoke clears.
Posted by: paully at March 01, 2007 09:30 PM (75YCX)
7
Linked!
Just trying to help get the word out.
Posted by: Larry at March 01, 2007 11:23 PM (Uewxa)
8
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/02/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at March 02, 2007 11:15 AM (kNjJk)
9
My concern is the 'accuracy' of the report. How do we know that the figures quoted are in fact reflective of what happened on the ground ?
Are there any US military units that have confirmed the Iraqi accounts from first-hand observations ?
If not, perhaps a few grains of salt might be in order. I would like nothing better than to have 70 Al-Queda scum in the ground, but Iraqis have been known to, shall we say, 'enhance' reality when it suits them.
And it tends to suit them quite a bit.
Just saying---
Posted by: dougf at March 02, 2007 11:42 AM (njDmX)
10
Its al-Reuters. The thing has been pre-spun as bad as possible and still came out looking good.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 02, 2007 04:11 PM (dHUp4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 28, 2007
Palestinian Crowd Control
Liveleak.com provides the following disturbing but intriguing video of an alleged Hamas sniper dispersing a group of Fatah gunmen with one well-place shot.
Content warning for... well, you'll see at the 27-second mark.
Early in the clip, we see a group of gunmen, which the person who posted this video clip thinks belong to the Palestinian Fatah party, which, depending on your point of view and perhaps which branch of Fatah you are talking about, may be viewed as a legitimate part of the Palestinian government, or as a terrorist organization. You'll note that all or most of the gunmen are wearing what can loosely be defined as a uniform, of sorts: dark, short-sleeved shorts, long black pants, various kinds of military web gear, and AK-pattern rifles.
Based upon the way they are clustered, it seems evident that they have little or no military training. A burst from a machine gun or an RPG strike could easily decimate the tightly-bunched group of at least six gunmen, not to mention the none-too bright bystanders only feet behind them. If this is representative of how Palestinian civilians typically observe urban combat, the Israeli Defense Forces deserve the Nobel Peace Prize every year for not killing thousands of them when engaging legitimate Palestinian military targets.
At the 26-second mark, the lead gunman steps away from the cover of the wall and raises his rifle to fire. A split second later, he squeezes off a shot as his last mortal act before collapsing from a single shot to the central nervous system a split second later.
Several bystanders then rush in with several of the other gunmen to drag the man who has just be shot out of the line of fire, some with hands raised. the group of gunmen and their supporters then sage a rapid retreat with the body of their martyr. It wasn't pretty, but a single shot ended this particular skirmish before it actually began.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:36 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Check out "palywood". This bunching of civilians behind thugs is fairly common. I would also guess that this is staged and the guy is fine. If there really was a sniper, the rest of the thugs wouldnt run to the open to get this guy or stand around in the open waiving in the ambulance.
Posted by: Rey at February 28, 2007 11:00 PM (TCo7a)
2
Another indication of lack of proper military training is none of the men returned fire. Maybe this is just something Jareheads do - but I would have been putting rounds into the sniper until either he or I was dead. Since I am keying this you can believe that the guy that walked away was always me!
An old exJarehaed
Nam 1967+1968
Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 28, 2007 11:06 PM (I8Qg3)
3
Rey
Based upon the way the guy dropped, and the telltale fluid trail which appears when he is dragged off, I'd say it looks pretty real to me.
Unless the Pallywood guys are planting FX squibs of red fluid to imitate blood, that is.
Posted by: j.pickens at March 01, 2007 12:35 AM (bGelp)
4
dispersion gents.
Mobbing up is fun, I guess.
Posted by: brando at March 01, 2007 01:13 AM (uZ35s)
5
"lack of proper military training" I'm no military expert but for me, using a corner that has a radius seems to not be such a good idea. You are left open at so many tangent points.
Also, I think the guy is toast. He went down like a sack o' tubers and as the commenter mentioned above, he had a leakage problem.
Posted by: markm at March 01, 2007 06:45 AM (hVOTO)
6
It's a shame when the only reactions I have after seeing a man shot down is "What a bunch of drama queens."
They really dig on the theatrics over there, don't they? It's like the level of grief they feel isn't so much what they feel, but based on the opinions of their audience.
"Wow, check out Jalil. Clearly he is the most bereaved, for he has fallen to his knees and beseeching the heavens for answers."
"I disagree, Mehmet. Have a look at Abdul. He is over there before the cameras, punching himself in the dingdong and cursing the jews."
I guess it's just different. Most Americans handle their grief with a little more dignity. Most.
Posted by: paully at March 01, 2007 07:20 AM (8xX/X)
7
Red on Red. If the sniper was IDF, I'm sure we would have already heard about this 'war crime' in the MSM.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 01, 2007 08:24 AM (oC8nQ)
8
Excellent blog you have here, ya Rebel Blue-Belly. Glad I ran across it. Definitely will be added to my favorites list.
Regards,
Posted by: Clay at March 01, 2007 09:47 AM (U6x6j)
9
"Most Americans handle their grief with a little more dignity."
paully, last time I saw that much drama was at Coretta King's funeral.
Posted by: Clay at March 01, 2007 10:17 AM (U6x6j)
10
Heh, scorpions in a bottle.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 02, 2007 03:57 AM (dHUp4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Eric Boehlert's Creepy Obsession
I've only come across this story several days late, but has anyone noticed that Eric Boehlert of Media Matters is obsessed with Michelle Malkin?
It would appear to be an
unhealthy obsession at best, but perhaps what irritates me about his posts the most is not his opinion of Malkin, to which he is certainly entitled, but the fact that Boehlert can't keep his facts straight, which seems to be a
long-running problem.
He concludes his most recent attack by listing bullet points of what he considers "Malkin’s recent lowlights,” including the following:
- In April 2005, Malkin was leading the charge (i.e. "raising troubling questions") in accusing a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer with the Associated Press of working in concert with Iraqi insurgents to stage the public assassination of a Baghdad election worker. (The photog was tipped off by terrorists, Malkin claimed.) The allegations were proven to completely fictitious.
Entirely ficticious, Mr. Boehlert?
You wouldn't find it in Boehlert's article—he does not have the integrity to link directly to the
Malkin post in question—nor does he link to the
April, 2006 article on Malkin's site that shows that the charges were far from "completely fictitious." As a matter of fact, it appears that the charges may have been quite accurate. What is Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Bilal Hussein doing now?
Cooling his heels in an Iraqi jail after being captured with al Qaeda leader Hamid Hamad Motib and another terrorist. Somehow, I doubt Boehlert will apologize for being wrong.
But this wasn't Boehlert's only questionable lowlight, as he concludes with this gem, near and dear to my own heart:
- In January, Malkin experienced a particularly humiliating setback. For months, Malkin had been pushing a far-fetched media "scandal" by accusing the Associated Press of manufacturing a "phony" and "bogus" Iraqi police source who was reporting false stories about the daily carnage inside Baghdad. She claimed the phony AP source proved that all of the AP's Iraq reporting was suspect. (Malkin and company cling to the notion that the situation in Iraq is not as bad as biased journalists make it out to be.) In January, the Iraqi government confirmed the police source's existence, thereby ruining Malkin's press-hating conspiracy theory. (The Post remained silent when Malkin's Jamil Hussein allegation imploded.)
This may be a news flash to Boehlert, but as regular readers of
Confederate Yankee know, there is no Jamil Hussein, there never has been, and despite what Boehlert and the Associated Press maintain, Iraqi General Abdul-Karim Khalaf says he
never confirmed the existence of Jamil Hussein, and he has
gone on the record to set the story straight.
Instead of the General confirming the existence of Jamil Hussein, Associated Press reporters confirmed to General Abdul-Karim that Jamil Hussein was a pseudonym; the name of the source the AP misrepresented as Jamil Hussein was actually Jamil Gulaim Innad XX-XXXXXXX [Name redacted for security reasons — Ed.], which AP reporters confirmed both during a conversation with General Abdul-Karim prior to Steven R. Hurst's deceptive
January 4 article, and with a phone call to General Abdul-Karim after XX-XXXXXXX was interviewed by the Ministry of the Interior.
Eric Boehlert's obsession with Michelle Malkin is a bit creepy, but the fact he seems quite willing to lie—or is just an incompetent researcher—goes far beyond his obsessionwith Michelle Malkin, to whether or not we can trust him to be the least bit honest or accountable for the things that he writes.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:20 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good grief - Media Mush is what he is.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at February 28, 2007 06:04 PM (VNM5w)
2
Speaking of obsessive. . . Jamil blah blah blah blah. When does your biography of Jamil Hussein become available? I'll accept Boehlert is creepy if you assign the same opprobrium to your own manifestation of a life form.
Posted by: BarnabasCollins at February 28, 2007 08:02 PM (qcIIv)
3
You are forgetting the gravy train syndrome.
The person in question's attacks on Malkin contribute to his reader base and his ability to increase it and or make a living at Media Matters.
Acknowlidging the facts in question would decrease that ability.
It has long been my opinion that a lot of the faux outrage and noise on the left is a question of people on the gravy train trying to stay there. People who make a living at places like media matters live off of these obsession, unlike say a Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) Scott Johnson et-al (Powerline) and Ed Morrissey (Captain's Quarters) who all have day jobs that pay the bills.
This is what I think really drives these people to the point where they even start believing their own press. If they fail, then they have to work for a living, but if they stick with it, they have a job and maybe a future on the speaking circuit.
All you need are willing believers and the left is full of them.
Posted by: Peter at February 28, 2007 08:10 PM (5nK6Y)
4
@BarnabasCollins:
Being obsessed with stopping a terrorist psy-op isn't creepy, it's patriotic.
Posted by: Laika's Last Woof at February 28, 2007 08:39 PM (3Espv)
5
Well, its unsettling if you're a terrorist sympathizer ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 28, 2007 08:56 PM (dHUp4)
6
Finally! Somebody on the right admitting that Malkin is a terrorist psy-op.
This glorious day has been a long time coming.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 28, 2007 10:02 PM (+cRp7)
7
There does seem to be an undercurrent of unreasonable hatred against Mrs. Malkin. I think its because she's effective and perhaps not sufficiently deferrential to the Lords of the left.
Posted by: Mick Stockinger at February 28, 2007 10:11 PM (2S03+)
8
Oh... so there was a Jamil Hussein.
Posted by: Daniel at February 28, 2007 10:12 PM (xbPAH)
9
Oh... so there was a Jamil Hussein.
No Daniel ... Jamil is a red herring.
Saying they were sourcing a Jamil 'Hussein' is like saying their main source for IP intel is John Smith.
Posted by: Dan Irving at February 28, 2007 10:37 PM (M2qll)
10
He's not the only Eric with that obsession. Which manifested itself several times.
Twisting her words.
Mocking her with regard to the Reuters Israel-Lebanon war Photoshop controversy.
Posted by: JohnAnnArbor at February 28, 2007 11:22 PM (tLXqv)
11
Of course it's creepy...but these guys make their stripes in a "repeat it until it's the truth" kind of world. Their readers don't even believe in the concept of facts let alone immutable truth.
Posted by: Gunga at March 01, 2007 10:45 AM (iTEFI)
12
"Oh ... so there was a Jamil Hussein."
Are you wilfully obtuse or just plain too dense to gather the crux of the issue. The whole "Jamil Hussein" episode comprised three questions:
1. Was there an actual source for the AP reports?
2. Was it who the AP said it was?
3. Was the source accurate and reliable?
A pass on the first does nothing to ameliorate the malfeasance associanted with failing the latter two.
Of course, detractors of the Iraqi campaign have long demonstrated their inability to think multidimensionally, as evidenced by their boiling down almost a dozen clearly stated reasons for the invasion to the singular "WMD" point. Either that or it is a disingenuous modus operandi of obsessively focusing on a single isolated "victory" for them while ignoring the larger picture.
Posted by: submandave at March 01, 2007 03:59 PM (ljAGw)
13
Malkin is a a) brown b) woman c) conservative. As we've seen with so many others, from Supreme Court justices to politicians to academics to media members, nobody incurs the wrath of the political left like those members of groups who were historical targets of discrimination who now refuse to think the way they are told to think.
What is fascinating is how baldly racist and sexist the typical attack on Malkin are. Bigotry is acceptable if in the service of the right cause in this mindset.
Posted by: lakerg at March 01, 2007 06:31 PM (A+Taf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iranians State "Right" To Pursue Kurdish Rebels Into Iraq
Ostensibly, this means they won't have any problem if we decide we need to return the favor:
Iran's forces may cross into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels if the government in Baghdad can't expel the militants from border areas, an Iranian commander said.
"I warn Iraq's Kurdish movements and anti-revolutionary armed insurgents who are linked with foreigners that Iraq's government must oust them from the region," Revolutionary Guards leader Yahya Rahim Safavi was cited as saying today by state-run Mehr News. "Otherwise the Revolutionary Guards, to protect the security of the country and Iranian people, will consider it as their right to chase and neutralize them beyond the borders."
I hope that U.S. State Department diplomats will take measures to make sure this is a reciprocal "right" that can be enjoyed by Coalition military forces as they meet with Iranian diplomats as part of an
international meeting on Iraq, but somehow I doubt it.
Update: If I was a Kurdish rebel, and this is an example of the kind of pursuit the Iranians have in mind, I'm not sure that I'd be
all that concerned.
The Iranians sure are lucky that the Kurds seem to be having a harder time finding EFPs than their neighbors further south.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:12 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hey, don't those Iranians look like they are carrying Michael Yon's 'Mystery' Weapon?
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 28, 2007 02:18 PM (oC8nQ)
2
Hey, don't those Iranians look like they are carrying Michael Yon's 'Mystery' Weapon?
At the very least they don't look real. Of course keeping a well trained army is pretty expensive. That money is better spent paying each other off.
Posted by: Dan Irving at February 28, 2007 03:27 PM (zw8QA)
3
Maybe they're decoys with painted PVC from Allah's Home Depot - but what the hell kind of dirt-bike is that, one of those Chinese Honda-Yamaha rip-offs?
It's not an XR or a YZ, it's an XZ?? Looks like a Mid 80's XL with the sprocket on the wrong side.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at February 28, 2007 06:10 PM (VNM5w)
4
If I were a Kurdish "rebel", I'd arrange to get "chased" by the Iranians towards a US combat unit in Iraq.
Were I a US combat commander, I might be tempted to encourage such a situation.
Posted by: Greg D at February 28, 2007 08:20 PM (8viKe)
5
Sounds like a useful group to fund as long as they do their work in Iran.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 01, 2007 01:15 PM (+6Lm4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BDS, EFPs, and the NY Times
One of the (often deserved) knocks against journalists is that many reporters are generalists, covering a wide range of breaking news stories, but lacking the specific knowledge one needs to write cogently or with any depth on a specific issue. That is especially true in smaller news organizations, where a general news reporter may have to cover a crash, a zoning board meeting, or an anti-hobo-kicking rally, depending on the news of the day.
At larger news organizations, however, reporters often fall into "silos," covering a certain beat, where they are expected to specialize on a specific kind of news story. This is why we have financial reporters, foreign affairs reporters and that guy who talks about "hog futures" (I tend to think that hog futures are almost all the same, usually involving their role as an entrée, unless they have an exceptionally
literate spider nearby, but I digress).
A clear example of this kind of stellar, specialized reporting was published in the
NY Times yesterday morning,
U.S. Displays Bomb Parts Said to Be Made in Iran. After reading the article, I was left wondering if James Glantz and Richard A. Oppel, Jr., had transcended being mere reporters, as their insightful commentary was clearly approaching the level where they could soon be rubbing elbows with a frigid of Maureen Dowds or a pod of Oliver Willi.
Take a moment to bask in the glory of their perfectly honed lede:
— In a dusty field near the Baghdad airport on Monday, the American military laid out a display of hundreds of components for assembling deadly roadside bombs, its latest effort to embarrass the country it contends is supplying the material to armed Shiite groups here: Iran.
All along, I've been under the delusion that we were fighting Sunni insurgents, al Qaeda terrorists, and Shia militias in an attempt to bring some sort of stability to the 26 million people of Iraq. What was I thinking? As the razor-sharp team of Glantz and Oppel astutely noted, our military goal—of which this is just the "latest effort"—is the embarrassment of Iran. How did I miss that? Well, that is why they are the professionals, and I'm just a blogger.
It takes a sharp dedicated mind to cover the war for the
NY Times. Listen to how these crack experts can turn even the most technical matter into speech even us common folk can understand:
The cache included what Maj. Marty Weber, a master explosives ordnance technician, said was C-4 explosive, a white substance, in clear plastic bags with red labels that he said contained serial numbers and other information that clearly marked it as Iranian.
See? C4 is a "white substance" with "red labels" in a "clear plastic bag."
That I can grasp. It has, as we say,
meat on it.
Why, if someone had tried to tell us that C4 was a durable, moldable RDX-based high explosive, it would have been far too complex to comprehend. I guess we're just lucky our soldiers didn't find any
triacetone triperoxide.
But sometimes, even such experts as Glantz and Oppel can find the more technical aspects of their job, well, confusing:
But while the find gave experts much more information on the makings of the E.F.P.’s, which the American military has repeatedly argued must originate in Iran, the cache also included items that appeared to cloud the issue.
Among the confusing elements were cardboard boxes of the gray plastic PVC tubes used to make the canisters. The boxes appeared to contain shipments of tubes directly from factories in the Middle East, none of them in Iran. One box said in English that the tubes inside had been made in the United Arab Emirates and another said, in Arabic, “plastic made in Haditha,” a restive Sunni town on the Euphrates River in Iraq.
The box marked U.A.E. provided a phone number for the manufacturer there. A call to that number late Monday encountered only an answering machine that said, “Leave your number and we will call you back.”
Quite confusing, indeed.
These tubes made of the very rare element PVC. The fact that none of these tubes was made in Iran "cloud[s] the issue," for Glantz and Oppel in much the same way that Toyota's manufactured in Tennessee are still "Japanese cars."
The thing is, these commonly-found components didn't really seem to cloud the issue at all. At least, it didn't cloud the issue for the guys who created a series of PowerPoint presentations for a
security services company in Iraq that just happened to fall into my lap.
The tubes, be they plastic or metal, made in Tehran, Haditha, or Boise, don't really matter.
Any tube of the right size can be used to make an EFP, as even I can figure out. What matters are the explosive charge and the copper liners that form into slugs when the EFP detonates.
Why, one might even think that Glantz and Oppel were the ones purposefully trying to cloud the issue, but I guess that even professionals can get confused, so I'll see what little I can do to help.
This is a captured EFP.
It doesn't have a "made in Iran" stamp on it, so I can see how two of the
Times best could get confused.
It isn't shiny, and it isn't pretty, but then, it doesn't have to be. What matters is that the copper disk liner on the front is manufactured to precise tolerances to form a slug when the explosive blast wave hits it. These aren't very easy to make without the right manufacturing equipment, and the kind of manufacturing equipment used to make them can often be determined from tool marks left on the copper disks. These marks are like fingerprints if not quite as precise, and can often determine where an EFP came from, especially if the EFP is captured intact before firing.
That is essentially what Maj. Jeremy Siegrist attempted to tell Glantz and Oppel, but they still seemed confused and captivated by the tubes. They even apparently misplace Siegrist's quote to make it appear he is talking about the PVC tubes in this cache, as opposed to the machined copper disks to which he seems to be rather obviously referring. Journalism? It's
hard.
Items in the cache included the concave copper dishes called liners that cap the canisters and roll into deadly armor-piercing slugs when the explosive detonates. There were also various kinds of electronics, presumably for arming and triggering the devices, the PVC tubes, and two types of rockets and mortar shells that Major Weber said had markings and construction that identified them as being Iranian in origin.
The PVC tubes, of several different sizes, appeared to be fittings of the kind of used to splice two stretches of PVC tube together in routine applications.
“It’s worth pursuing that it’s machine-made and you can track the country of origin,” said Maj. Jeremy Siegrist of the First Cavalry Division. “And it’s manufactured for a specific purpose.”
The terrorists that use them have found that when EFPs are shiny and pretty, soldiers tend not to drive in front of them, and so they started camouflaging them by burying them in dirt mounds, or other roadside debris, or in fake rocks, like this one.
This particular fake rock EFP is quite nasty, as many of the newer EFPs are. This is a bank of 5 EFPs hidden in one fake rock, aimed at slightly different angles to create a wider spread of fire across a larger area.
As stated earlier, and mentioned above by Maj. Siegrist, these copper disks have a very specific purpose behind their design; the blast wave created when the explosive charge goes off will turn a properly shaped copper disk into a explosively-formed penetrator like the one below, moving at up to 2,000 meters/second.
These penetrators do very nasty things, as you might imagine, but you'll have to go elsewhere to see the results. Unlike CNN, I'm not interested in promoting the results of a terrorist attack. I will however, show you what an EFP looks like even after it has hit its target.
As you can see, a properly manufactured EFP still holds together rather well even after hitting an armored vehicle and injuring or killing those inside.
Improperly manufactured EFPs, presumably, don't work as well. If not shaped properly, they will, instead of forming a dart-like penetrator, will be thrust forward as some sort of misshapen
blog blob with far less penetrative power that could go wildly off target, or simply shatter on detonation in far less lethal shrapnel.
I hope this little bit of information eases the confused clouds surrounding and created by Glantz and Oppel, and yet somehow, I doubt it. They're covering the war to embarrass Iran, not the one we are actually fighting.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:46 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So the only two logical explanations for the NY Times woefully inaccurate and deceptive piece, as I understand your post, Yank, are:
1. Glans and Offal are idiots
2. Glans and Offal are propagandists who are promoting a political agenda
Thats not good.
Posted by: TMF at February 28, 2007 01:13 PM (+BgNZ)
2
Any mischaracterization that prevents Bushitler from committing more wars of aggression against the peace-loving Iranians is justified. Any idiot knows at least that.
So, TMF, both of your explanations might be accurate.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 01, 2007 02:18 PM (+6Lm4)
3
reporters are generalists
No, they're morons. Real generalists understand when they don't know something, and have a clue as to where they might be able to find the people who do know.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 02, 2007 04:02 AM (dHUp4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Editing the Offensive
I must confess that I simply don't get it (well, except for the puppet show, which is predictable to a tedious degree).
So what if Arianna Huffington felt compelled to close her comments, and then started deleting (but
not fast enough) hate-filled invective left by liberal commenters? I have to do that every time certain liberal sites link to mine.
It kind of comes with the clientele.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:35 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
February 27, 2007
Taliban Claims Attempt on Cheney
File this one under wishful thinking:
A Taliban suicide bomber killed up to 12 people at the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Tuesday in an attack the rebels said was aimed at Dick Cheney, but the visiting U.S. vice president was not hurt.An American and South Korea soldier were killed, as well as a U.S. government contractor whose nationality was unknown, NATO and Korean officials said. NATO said 27 people were wounded.
A Reuters photographer at the scene at Bagram Airbase, 60 km (40 miles) north of Kabul, saw eight bodies in addition to NATO's tally of four dead, putting the toll at 12.
"We wanted to target ... Cheney," Taliban spokesman Mullah Hayat Khan told Reuters by phone from an undisclosed location.
An terrorism expert cited on
WPTF radio stated that there was possibly a leak from Pakistan's
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) revealing Cheney's trip to Bagram, which followed on the heels of the Vice President's trip to Pakistan, in which Cheney asked Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to
crack down on al Qaeda and Taliban elements operating out of the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border.
It almost goes without saying that the suicide bombing attempt, while bloody, was a futile effort. Bagram is a huge airbase, and Cheney was far from the edge of the base where the attack occurred, and under multiple layers of security. Almost any other kind of attack—mortars or rockets come to mind—would have still likely failed, but still would have had a far greater chance of success than the truck bomb on the edge of the perimeter. Instead of getting anywhere near the Vice President, the suicide bomber instead killed several soldiers and the rest of the victims appear to be civilian truckers and workers waiting to have their vehicles searched before entering the base.
It will be very interesting to see how Musharraf reacts to this apparent leak from within his nation's security service.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:06 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Leak? Yank, a "leak" would be indicated by somebody noticing the extra security and assuming the base was under inspection by Karzai's generals or something.
The Taliban knowing VP Cheney was there and *organizing an attack at all* makes it pretty clear that Musharraf is no longer in control of his own security service.
I'm not 100% sure what the solution to Pakistan is. I do know that Pervez Musharraf is not part of it. He's a large part of the problem. If he had cracked down two years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead he signed over Waziristan to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and ISI is so badly compromised it might as well be the Taliban's intel arm. In many ways it is.
We need to ask ourselves what other alternatives we have besides Musharraf running Pakistan...because it's becoming increasingly clear that he doesn't have control. If we wait for that to become official, then we have Islamist terrorists with Pak nukes...and they *will* be used against the US.
Posted by: Jared at February 27, 2007 05:14 PM (4xUWs)
2
I wonder if the Taliban phone call came before or after it was announced that Cheney was OK.
Two years ago, their attacks seemed a lot more studied and deliberate -- when my company's building got hit, their method and timing suggested careful (though still insufficient) planning on their part to maximize the damage. Taliban "signs" were found (black flag tacked to a wall) in the area indicating an attack coming and for people to clear out, and children were chased away minutes before the blast. The bomber actually survived because he knew the security posture around the building well enough to know that he could drive up, sprint away, and detonate the bomb.
Constrast that with what happened at Bagram the other day. Again, tt was a totally pointless and futile attack -- Cheney was probably never anywhere near that gate at any time anyway. This seems to me to be indicitive of a serious weaking of leadership. The Taliban I encountered were running ops on us requireing surveillance and planning. This new Taliban is committing acts in futility and taking out bystanders, which they seemed very reluctant to do in the past.
Am I saying the Taliban should be discounted or ignored? Of course not. But they're hardly behaving like a formidable group with sound leaders and tactics that are "making a comeback" as some outlets would have us believe.
Posted by: paully at February 27, 2007 08:55 PM (75YCX)
3
requireing -> requiring

Posted by: paully at February 27, 2007 08:56 PM (75YCX)
4
That is a really horrible story. I am glad Cheney is ok.
Hey, since the conspiracy kooks want to believe the worst about Bush, and also think he is responsible for 9/11 and for most attacks around the world, maybe they will think that George was out to get Dick.
But, I came in here to bring you good news of great joy!
A new political party is being offered to the tens of millions of Americans who feel that both the Republican party and the Democrat party have NOT led them to achieve what they really want our government to do for them.
We want our borders secured and our immigration laws ENFORCED NOW! We want tax reform-and we want it ASAP! We want much more efficient, innovative and effective SMALLER government that gives us more bang for our hard-earned buck. We want Senate rules that currently do not allow an up or down vote for all executive appointment to the federal judiciary changed to allow a constitutional up or down vote. We want our second amendment right to keep and BEAR arms VIGILANTLY protected! We believe America’s best and brightest days are YET to come! We yearn for REAL change that PRODUCES real results that truly satisfies our good desires for our families, America’s future and our posterity. And, we want it all RIGHT NOW!
The new party is called the ‘New Republican Party’ and can be further studied at my website. This party is what we, and millions of others like us, have all been searching for…but it has never existed before…until NOW!
Posted by: Denny at February 28, 2007 05:31 AM (7qSs3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 26, 2007
Pat Dollard: Living With Snipers
Pat Dollard's letting me run an unedited version of Living with Snipers from his "Young Americans" Iraq War documentary series as a semi-exclusive (avialable in full only here on CY and patdollard.com). Content warning for language. Thanks to Pat's web guy Chad Coleman for setting up the embed code.
frameborder="0" width="500" height="375">
Update: Hot Air has a more polished, abbreviated and cleaner (language-wise) version of this clip for those of you who may be sucking your employer's bandwidth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:50 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Wow, great documentary video. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and could relate to these Marines.
Posted by: DoubleTap at February 26, 2007 07:15 PM (g6Jkd)
2
I dearly hope this documentary, courageously, filmed by Pat will open the eyes of those amongst us who continually demonise the fabulous work undertaken by the men and women of the coalition.
Posted by: Dominantau at February 27, 2007 03:30 PM (0EH9p)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Scandal that Refuses to Die: AP PR Director Alleges Iraqi General Lied About Jamil Hussein
The Jamil still-not-Hussein story is getting interesting again, with the AP's Director of Media Relations & Public Affairs, Linda Wagner, sending me an email early Saturday morning strongly implying that Iraqi Interior Ministry Spokesman Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf lied when he stated that he never confirmed the identity of the AP's two-year source as Jamil Hussein in an exclusive to Pajamas Media last week.
Wagner stated:
Mr. Owens,
AP knows that police officer Jamil Gholaim Hussein was its source. We did wish to obtain from Brigadier General Khalaf confirmation that Hussein is on the Iraqi police force, after Khalaf had earlier denied that fact. Khalaf provided that information on January 4.
An AP reporter attended the Iraqi Interior Ministry briefing on January 4. After the briefing, the AP reporter spoke to Khalaf who confirmed for the record what he had told that same reporter on the phone unofficially the night before:
* that Jamil Hussein's name could not be found in their initial search of their Iraqi police employee records.
* that subsequent searches of those records turned up Jamil Gholaim Hussein, which is the name AP reported in late November 2006.
Khalaf has since told the same thing to another AP reporter.
Linda Wagner
Director of Media Relations & Public Affairs
The Associated Press
I'd be very interested to see how BG Khalaf "provided that information" on January 4, if he in fact did so. He maintains, of course, that the story is quite the opposite, that the AP reporters he spoke with confirmed their source as someone with a different name (Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX [Name redacted for security reasons — Ed.]), on two occasions.
If the Associated Press has documentation proving their allegation, then things could get very interesting for the Interior Ministry spokesman, but at this point, Wagner has refused to answer whether or not they have anything to support their contention, or if they are simply going on the word of their reporters, which are apparently the same reporters that have been completely unable to substantiate the claim that 24 people died in the Hurriyah mosque attacks with any physical evidence over the past three months.
The burden of proof rests fully on the Associated Press to prove that "Hussein" exists, and so far, they have fallen woefully short.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:50 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bob, do you ever get the feeling you are like John Cleese holding a dead parrot and the AP is Eric Idle telling you that its 'resting'?
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 26, 2007 03:08 PM (oC8nQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Alleged Sunni Rape Victim an Apparent Mormon
As relayed by a source in Iraq, Al-Iraqiya television at 9:00 PM had breaking news about the investigation of the rape alleged by Sabrine al-Janabi, the woman that brought rape charges against Iraqi policemen one week ago today. According to the account relayed this morning, it seems like her name is false and that she has more than one husband, to boot:
The channel carries a report by its correspondent Thamir
al-Shammari on the alleged rape of an Iraqi woman called Sabrine
al-Janabi. The report says: "The investigation committee that was
formed to look into the case revealed initial facts about the real
name of Sabrin al-Janabi, which is Zaynab al-Shammari, who is married
to more than one man according to official papers. She also has a
daughter, according to the Interior Ministry undersecretary, who
chairs the investigation committee." The undersecretary is shown
saying that it has been proved that Zaynab was married to two men at
the same time, which is a violation of the law and Islamic law.
This case just keeps getting stranger.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:37 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Uh, no. Personally,I would have gone with Wiccan, not Mormon. Mormon's practiced polygyny (1 man, multiple wives). A woman married to more than 1 man is technically polyandry, perfectly acceptable in an open, Gaia based belief system (that's funny, she didn't look druidish!).
Yeah, it's a subtle distinction. Nothing that a Greek Orthodox would get incensed about. It's like when I bought a stuffed alpaca for my daughter--or did I buy a dolly llama? As the zen buddist would say, "Nevermind."
Religious stereotype? Mine's a Sony. -cp
Posted by: cold pizza at February 26, 2007 02:23 PM (VOA2U)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 23, 2007
More on that Iranian Fauxtography
As you might recall, Charles Johnson caught the Iranian Fars News Agency in a crude attempt to PhotoShop "evidence" showing the United States was supplying insurgents in Iran with munitions. With my background in things that go bang, I noticed and commented on the fact that ammunition in the manipulated picture was nothing less than old Winchester USA civilian-grade practice ammunition.
Several readers chimed in to date the ammunition packaging to 10-20 years old, and several sent in photos to prove it.
One of those readers, Don Jordan, went so far as to contact Olin Corporation, Winchester's parent company, to get the official word from the company itself, and they provided the following response:
Mr. Jordan,
Thank you for visiting Olin's website. Your inquiry was forwarded to me
for response.
The ammunition boxes appearing in the picture are similar to commercial packaging we began using about 20 years ago and subsequently discontinued using approximately 15 years ago. I also feel it important to note that Winchester is a proud supporter of our military forces and complies with all U.S. Departments of State, Commerce and Treasury regulations with regard to the sale of our products. Although we believe this photo has been altered, we do take this allegation seriously and can assure the public that Winchester has not, does not and will not supply any product to Iran or any other country or person that does not meet the approval of the U.S. Government.
I hope this information is helpful, and I thank you for contacting us.
Ann Pipkin
Olin Corporation
Vintage ammunition and a poorly 'Shopped picture.
The boys at Far News just aren't very clever.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:34 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Can I See Some ID?
Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.
While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.
The officials, Democratic aides and others familiar with private discussions, spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:46 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"I swear by Allah, the orphanage, it attacked me! I was just defending myself with that 5 kilos of plastic explosive packet with ball bearings! Am I not allowed to defend myself, Mr Crusader?"
Posted by: MunDane at February 23, 2007 12:31 PM (Bi4Gu)
2
Democratic politicians want dictate the Rules of Engagement to soldiers? Why that's absurd. I mean there's no precedent for such a thing!
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 23, 2007 01:04 PM (oC8nQ)
3
This opens the door for al Qaeda to wear fake insurgent uniforms and thus be totally protected....
The Dems want a "Commander in Chief Committee". Must be one of those emanations of a penumbra type of things.....
Posted by: SouthernRoots at February 23, 2007 02:42 PM (EsOdX)
4
So, when some Shi'ite militia guy with Iranian backing uses an EFP or is planning to attack US forces, we should ignore him? We should just take the blows because he's not "al Qaeda"?
Or, if the guy is from the Ansar al Sunna or Ba'athi R us and attacks US forces, we should ignore him because his organization swears they are independent and does not have the name "Al Qaeda" or any pledge to support "al Qaeda" in their "manifesto"?
Do these guys have any idea how these groups are organized or how they work in conjunction with each other?
Posted by: kat-missouri at February 23, 2007 03:58 PM (RKCKD)
5
The demo over-reaching has been much harder and faster than I ever expected. Another 18 months of this and they'll be out on their butts again.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 23, 2007 06:02 PM (ir49f)
6
Incredible! I wonder if Harry could show me in the Constitution where it says that the Senate is tasked with commanding the armed forces....I don't think he could. LOL. But I bet he could show me some great land deals in Nevada or maybe even get me some front row seats for a boxing match. Givmeuhbreak....
Posted by: Specter at February 23, 2007 06:13 PM (ybfXM)
7
There have been countless pixels killed in the defense of the idea that "Congress said we could, even though the reasons we gave weren't fully true, so we can do anything we think it takes to get the job done."
If a large part of the Administration's case rests with "Congress passed the resolution," then doesn't Congress's rescinding the resolution have the same weight?
If not, why not? Congress can pass laws and repeal them; can't it pass resolutions and repeal them? Has any scholarly work at all been done on this topic?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 23, 2007 09:20 PM (S25Sh)
8
Has any scholarly work at all been done on this topic?
The US Constitution itself? Article 1 section 9?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 23, 2007 09:34 PM (ir49f)
9
Avenger:
When I look at Article 1, section 9, I'm seeing slave trade, bill of attainder, taxation, appropriations and titles of nobility. Am I missing something?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 24, 2007 04:41 AM (5pxUG)
10
Doc,
Executive branch has control of the military. Period. That is why the President is the Commander in Chief. He calls the shots, not Congress - for any reason. When Congress says that one version of their bill is to restrict the troops from engaging anyone other than Al Quaeda, they are in effect trying to craft the rules of engagement to be used. That is NOT their prerogative. It lies outside their constitutional authority.
What I am seeing is an attempt by the Dims to broaden the powers of the Congress beyond what the constitution allows. Gee - Isn't that what the left was all ablather about over the issue the TSP? And now they seem to think it's OK for their side to do what they accused the President of doing. Get a grip.
Posted by: Specter at February 24, 2007 11:13 AM (ybfXM)
11
In the same vein, only Congress can declare war. The Administration continues to insist that we are at war, yet there was no declaration of war--only a resolution that allowed the President to use force.
Only Congress can write and pass legislation, yet the President continues to perform much the same job by altering legislation as he sees fit by signing statements.
The point I'm trying to make here is that a lot of the assumptions we've had over the years about the separation of powers have been challenged of late. All three branches reach for more power than strict constructionists would give them. In our discussions, we need to deal with the real-world scenario.
Congress has control of the public purse. That's a legitimate use of its Constitutional power. This includes money to be spent on the military.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 24, 2007 01:44 PM (A1SKF)
12
Ahhh...yes....but not regulating the rules of engagement - that is way beyond their purview. And remember that the President can use the troops without declaring war. Not that hard to understand.
Posted by: Specter at February 24, 2007 10:51 PM (ybfXM)
13
Doc, the Dems have repeatedly said they will not cut off the funding, strictly for political cover. In addition, resolutions authorizing military action have been ruled as the functional and legal equivalent of a declaration.
Posted by: SDN at February 25, 2007 08:17 PM (TIw0n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Controversial Iraqi Rape Claim May Be "Red-On-Red"
I first heard of the allegations that a Sunni woman was raped by three Iraqi police officers they way many bloggers did, on an Iraqi blog called Baghdad Burning, where a blogger using the pseudonym "Riverbend" reported watching a 20-year-old woman by the name of Sabrine Al-Janabi reporting her alleged ordeal on al Jazeera television:
As I write this, Oprah is on Channel 4 (one of the MBC channels we get on Nilesat), showing Americans how to get out of debt. Her guest speaker is telling a studio full of American women who seem to have over-shopped that they could probably do with fewer designer products. As they talk about increasing incomes and fortunes, Sabrine Al-Janabi, a young Iraqi woman, is on Al Jazeera telling how Iraqi security forces abducted her from her home and raped her. You can only see her eyes, her voice is hoarse and it keeps breaking as she speaks. In the end she tells the reporter that she can’t talk about it anymore and she covers her eyes with shame.
It is worth noting that discussing rape is taboo in Arab cultures, where the "honor killings" of rape victims is an accepted practice, and that for a woman to come out to the broadcast news the day after such an attack and describe it in detail,
anywhere in the world on camera, is highly atypical, to say the least.
Throw in the fact that al Jazeera got an exclusive on this--they've been expelled from Iraq for biased reporting-- and note that some of the language used by Al-Janabi were "antithetical to Iraqi national unity" as one expert put it, that the Association of Muslim Scholars (an al Qaeda-aligned group whose leader Harith Dhari
fled Iraq on charges of inciting terrorism in December) was right there to denounce the alleged rape, and that leading Sunni politicians immediately used this alleged attack to
start questioning the Baghdad security plan just as the "surge" was cracking down hardest on Sunni terrorist groups, and you've got plausible reason to question the timing and delivery of the story.
This is not to say that rapes have not occurred in Iraq at the hands of security forces, as they almost certainly have--the alleged rape of a 50-year-old woman in Tal Afar by four soldiers, stopped by a fifth at gunpoint
seems quite plausible--but the choreography of the events surrounding Al-Janabi's account bear further scrutiny, especially in light of the fact it is being used by Sunni politicans and insurgent groups as a rallying point to try to thwart the Baghdad security plan, that at the moment, is hitting them the hardest.
Presently, it appears the politicians and the terrorists are trying to use issue to break the security plan on sectarian lines, alleging that the Shia-run police are attacking Sunni women.
There is just one problem with that theory: according to Yassen Mageed of the Iraqi Prime Minister’s office, and reported on Al Iraqiya TV Wednesday; all three officers that Al-Janabi alleged raped her
are Sunni.
I'm presently in the process of trying to get Mageed's statement verified, and hoping the get the names, ranks and confirmation of the sect of these three officers through my contacts in the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. The MOI is currently conducting an investigation of Al-Janabi's rape allegations, and once the investigation is complete, I'm told they plan to go on the record with their findings.
Surprisingly enough, the allegation by Yassen Mageed on Al Iraqiya TV that the three accused officers are Sunni does not appear to have been picked up by the world press.
As the allegation that this is a Sunni-on-Sunni crime would certainly dampen the rhetoric of Sunnis attempting to use this incident to force an end to the "surge," I find it quite interesting that the world media has completely failed to pick up this story.
Update: An account on
Fox News now reports that two of the three policement accused are Sunni:
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has exonerated the three policemen accused in the alleged Baghdad rape following an investigation that lasted less than a day. He accused Sunni politicians of fabricating the allegation to undermine support for the security forces during the ongoing Baghdad crackdown. Some Shiite lawmakers said the three included two Sunni Arabs.
They're slow, but better late than never. I do wonder, however, why this development isn't getting more attention.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Mr. Yankee, considering your distrust of the AP, why would you cite them to buttress your allegations?
Posted by: ts at February 23, 2007 03:34 PM (ILyRW)
2
Try reading the post again.
I got my information directly from a source in Iraq, and wondered why the MSM hadn't printed the same info. I noted the AP story on Fox in an update to show they were finally catching up to the story.
"Hey, I'm glad you could join us," isn't exactly citing them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 23, 2007 04:02 PM (g5Nba)
3
Al Jazerah (sp) is from a predominantly Sunni country (and most likely it's reporters and producers are Sunni as well), they already have shown a certain bias, I would not discount them having another one. Especially if is supports their pre-existing Anti-Western bias.
(Iran and an Iraq are the only Mid-east countries (that I know of) with a SIGNIFICANT Shia population)
Posted by: Jamesh at February 24, 2007 01:18 AM (yRmUM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 22, 2007
USO After Death
By request from one of our men "over there."
Funny how some things haven't changed in all these years.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:37 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If your in the military, remember to sign:
www.appealforcourage.org
This is an Appeal For Redress in support of our mission in Iraq.
An Appeal For Redress is an authorized means for active duty military to submit a grievance to Congress. It can be signed by Active Duty, Reserve, or National Guard military personnel.
It is authorized by DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6.
The wording of the Appeal for Redress is:
As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.
If you are active duty, reservist or national guard, please Sign this Appeal.
Most service members fully support the war in Iraq and feel calls to retreat by Congress and attacks by our media on our conduct and mission act to motivate our enemy while demoralizing our support at home, directly increasing the threat we face and resulting in greater American casualties. This Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to Congress to fully support us and actively oppose media attacks on our mission and our morale.
This Appeal will be delivered to members of Congress.
Sign here:
www.appealforcourage.org
Posted by: Bill Nelson at February 22, 2007 11:36 PM (TodDb)
2
His Girl Friday... a classic movie about journalism and politics, indeed. An unfortunate example of how Solomon's wisdom is still true today
Posted by: David at February 23, 2007 12:13 PM (tGHYV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
When the Deceptive and Uninformed Attack
The liberal blog The Carpetbagger Report has a post up this morning entitled They don’t even have the right rifles, in which the author laments over National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers being re-deployed without enough time between deployments and without the right equipment.
The post is based upon
this article in today's
New York Times.
Now, it is perhaps deceptive enough that the blog
dowdified the quote it chose to feature from the
Times article to leave out certain critical information that David S. Cloud felt was important enough to dedicate the second paragraph of the article to—namely that a final decision had
not been made to re-deploy these soldiers—but the blog then focused the rest of its post on lamenting that the soldiers don't have the "right" rifles.
Unlike the
Carpetbagger Report treatment of the
Times article, I'll provide you with their full rifle-related
original commentary:
As if that weren’t bad enough, there’s the equipment problem weighing heavily on the military. Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, told the NYT that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state’s 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers.
Think about that — National Guard troops are training for another quick deployment, but some of these soldiers don’t even have the right rifles yet. Body armor and Humvee protection is one thing, but Guard troops don’t have the rifles they want?
It’s unfortunately part of a trend.
The Politico reported today that military officials have given lawmakers “a long list of equipment and reconstruction needs totaling nearly $36 billion, denied earlier by the administration in its $481 billion defense appropriations request for the new fiscal year.”
The Army and Marine Corps say they need more than 5,000 armored vehicles, another $153 million for systems that defend against the deadly improvised explosive devices in Iraq and $13 million in language translation systems.
In an annual exercise initiated by the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the military service chiefs were asked to forward spending priorities for the new 2008 fiscal year that either Pentagon budget planners or White House budget officials struck from the services’ original requests. Lawmakers use the list to gauge where military commanders see shortfalls and to justify additions to the appropriations. […]
The Army’s $10.3 billion list includes $2.2 billion for 2,500 special vehicles to better protect troops against roadside bomb attacks.
Murtha’s “readiness strategy” is premised on the argument that troops with inadequate training and equipment shouldn’t be sent to Iraq. With this in mind, expect today’s reports to play a big role in the congressional debate. I can’t wait to hear to hear war supporters argue that National Guard troops who currently don’t even have the right rifles should be deployed anyway.
Now that we've heard the complaint about having the "right" rifles, let's take a look at exactly what we're discussing.
This is the M4 carbine:
The most common variant is chambered to shoot 5.56X45mm NATO ammunition out of a 14.5" barrel, has a 14.5" sight radius, and has a multi-position collapsible stock. It weighs in at 5.9 lbs (empty). Bullets leave the barrel at 2,900 ft/sec and generate 1645 joules of energy at the muzzle (Data from
Colt Weapons Systems).
The M4 is the weapon many soldiers prefer for its compactness, lower weight, and adaptability.
This is the M16 rifle:
The most common variant is chambered to shoot 5.56X45mm NATO ammunition out of a 20" barrel, has a 19.75" sight radius, and has a fixed stock. It weighs in at 7.5 lbs (empty). Bullets leave the barrel at 3,100 ft/sec and generate 1765 joules of energy at the muzzle (Data from
Colt Weapons Systems).
This combat-proven basic configuration and its updates have been the primary combat rifle for the American military for four decades.
Now, the
Carpetbagger Report has somehow determined, using some leap of illogic, that the "preferred" M4 is the "right rifle," though how they came to that conclusion is never explained.
The operating mechanisms, rate of fire (700-950 rounds per minute) and ammunition of these two weapons are nearly identical; the primary difference between the two weapons is the barrel of the M4 is 5.5" (27.5%) shorter than that of the M16.
The shorter barrel length and overall shorter weapon length of the M4 (also due to the multi-position collapsible stock) of the M4 makes the weapon extremely popular ("preferred") by many of our soldiers, as does it's lighter weight. But many does not mean all, and it does not mean right, and that shorter weapon has some serious drawbacks, among them, a serious lack of "stopping power."
Without getting to bogged down in the technical aspects, the M16 and M4 issued to our military use the standard 5.56x45 NATO round; the 5.56 being a militarized, higher pressure/higher velocity version of the .223 Remington cartridge. The .223 Remington is , as Wikipedia
correctly notes, a slightly enlarged and higher velocity version of the .222 Remington.
What is the primary avocation of the .222 and .223 Remington rounds?
Shooting creatures like these guys:
As you may well imagine, a cartridge developed from a family of cartridges designed to shoot small, lightly-armored woodland creatures has developed a reputation as having problems stopping much larger and occasionally armored humans. That problem is compounded in
shorter-barrelled weapons such as the M4:
There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the round, especially the first-round kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation. Typically, this only becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 meters) but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch barrel of the U.S. military's M4 Carbine can be particularly prone to this problem. At short ranges, the round is extremely effective, and its tendency to fragment reduces the risk to bystanders when used at close range. However, if the round is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a target is greatly reduced.
I've spoken with several soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg shortly after they returned from deployments to Iraq, and the lack of stopping power of the M4 was a significant complaint. On soldier I spoke with had just completed a tour in Ramadi, and mentioned that he had shot one insurgent in the chest three times as he advanced, and it took a fourth shot to the head to finally end the threat. He was armed with an M4, and despised the weapon’s poor stopping power.
Also armed with the M4 were the soldiers of the "Deuce Four" Stryker Brigade Michael Yon wrote about in
Gates of Fire, where:
Prosser shot the man at least four times with his M4 rifle. But the American M4 rifles are weak - after Prosser landed three nearly point blank shots in the man's abdomen, splattering a testicle with a fourth, the man just staggered back, regrouped and tried to shoot Prosser.
Prosser then engaged the man in heated hand-to-hand combat before finally prevailing over a man he'd already shot four times. The terrorist, 50% less fertile than before, was captured, and survived his wounds.
The simple fact of the matter is that the M4 may be "preferred" by some troops, but because of its record of dubious stopping power, it is not the favorite of all, leading to some soldiers preferring the M16, while others prefer modernized variations of the Vietnam-era M14 battle rifle. Because of the M4's anemic stopping power, there has been rushed special operations development of more powerful cartridges for elite forces, including the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendal, and the .50 Beowulf, to pick up where the 5.56 M4 falls short.
Clearly, there is a huge gap between "preferred" and "right," and millions of dollars have been poured into the development of weapons and cartridges precisely because many in the military community feel that the M4
is not the "right" rifle as the
Carpetbagger Report argues from a position of ignorance.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:08 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Is there a desire in the miltary to use hollow-point rounds similar to those in the domestic police forces ...I'd assume a HP 5.56mm would have more "stopping" power." Was it the Geneva convention that outlawed HP rounds? What is the reason?
Posted by: William at February 22, 2007 02:31 PM (BuHt/)
2
This is just another case of DIS-Information by the bleeding heart liberals, I personally own both versions of that weapon and Yankee is right on the mark. M-4 aka "Shorty" is no different than the full sized M-16 same ammo, same result other than the longer barreled M-16 is a little more accurate. My personal favorite is the 7.62 NATO/308 Win. one shot one kill round. The only draw back is that it requires a little heavier weapon and the additional weight of the ammo the service member has to carry. New model SOG SOCOM M1A1 is chambered in the PREFERRED 308WIN. Is absolutely AWSOME... And for those who don't know jack about weapons and ammo here is a little lesson. AK-47's and all of its derivitives shoot the same ammo 7.62X 39 or 7.62X 54 in the drugunov sniper rifle. The preffered weapon of our enemy. As far as I am concerned this is a dead issue that is trying to be politicized by individuals that that are absolutely clueless.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at February 22, 2007 02:47 PM (JYeBJ)
3
I called and spoke with CPT Heathscott. He informed me that they would all have M-4s by the time they deployed, that they currently have as many as they need for training purposes, and the reason they are missing the equipment they have is because they left equipment in Iraq for the unit that replaced them after their last deployment.
Posted by: Tony B at February 22, 2007 03:58 PM (1qTH8)
4
William,
FM 27-10 THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE
Chapter 2 Section 3 - Forbidden means of waging warfare
34. Employment of Arms Causing Unnecessary Injury
a. Treaty Provision.
It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)
b. Interpretation. What weapons cause "unnecessary injury" can only be determined in light of the practice of States in refraining from the use of a given weapon because it is believed to have that effect. The prohibition certainly does not extend to the use of explosives contained in artillery projectiles, mines, rockets, or hand grenades. Usage has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 22, 2007 04:01 PM (oC8nQ)
5
This sounds more like weapon snobbery than anything else. When my unit went to Kuwait, we made a big stink because we had 19 officers and only 10 assigned M9s Berettas. That meant one Major, all the Captains and our single Lieutenant all had to suffer the indignity of carrying M16s.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 22, 2007 04:29 PM (oC8nQ)
6
This gets back to the age-old debate: would our troops be better off with a round that has more stopping power, yet is heavier and thus more cumbersome to carry around in the same quantity? What round would be ideal, 5.56mm or 7.62mm or something in-between perhaps? Any opinions?
Posted by: mike at February 22, 2007 06:35 PM (GLMrI)
7
Opinion?
6lbs. 200 rounds per minute. 200 round mag. Remington .308 accurate at 400 meters.
Priceless. Also impossible.
Posted by: RiverRat at February 22, 2007 08:49 PM (1ZNLc)
8
"Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state’s 39th Brigade Combat Team ... also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers."
According to a DoD talking head on TV the other night, this is because they don't schlep the heavy stuff back and forth. The unit will pick up artillery in theater.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 22, 2007 08:55 PM (kuCYZ)
9
I never deny it when your right about something, Owens, and your right on with this post. To bad you couldn't have been more on target with your critique of Campos's thrashing of Instapundit...
Posted by: Frederick at February 22, 2007 09:13 PM (2SHkX)
10
The 5.56 is a crap round. Too light, not enough energy on target. The 7.62/308 is overkill. I understand that the Army is experimenting with a 6.5mm now.
Seems we won a certain war using the .30-06 though.
THEY could haul the ammo. Why not these kids, now??
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at February 22, 2007 09:37 PM (vRnST)
11
I am not endorsing this show. Just reporting on it.
Modern Marvels:The M-16.
The most powerful assault rifle ever used in combat, the M-16 became the symbol of our lost war--Vietnam--and can easily be called America's most unloved gun. Yet, 30 years after its introduction, it stands as a potent icon of U.S. military strength worldwide. We'll explain how it almost ended up on the scrap heap!
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 22, 2007 09:42 PM (kuCYZ)
12
The 5.56 is a crap round. Too light, not enough energy on target. The 7.62/308 is overkill. I understand that the Army is experimenting with a 6.5mm now.
Seems we won a certain war using the .30-06 though.
THEY could haul the ammo. Why not these kids, now??
Two Main Reasons.
1. We use the tactics of massive supression w/ fire and manuver. It takes a lot of rounds.
2. We carry a lot of weight. It's really hard to overstate how much crap there is to carry. Yeah the old troopers carried 30 cals, but they didn't carry interceptor armor with SAPI plates, nvgs, and all the usefull odds and ends. It's very easy to fall into the "Well, you can carry one more thing" trap.
Posted by: brando at February 23, 2007 01:22 AM (uZ35s)
13
I'm not a soldier, but I am a proud owner of an M-4 derivative. The one thing in favor of the 5.56 round that I don't think can be overstated is the lack of recoil. While a 30-06 is not a hard kicking round, for today's gun (well rifle anyway) inexperienced recruit, it can feel like a ton of recoil. I hunt with a 300 Win Mag and would NOT want that in a firefight, because after a dozen or so shots, you really feel the recoil, and I shoot often. Someone with little rifle experience might feel the recoil of a 30-06 and be totally inaccurate after the first shot. 7.62 has the same problem. Ultimately, unless you shoot very often, like the SOF, you want something easy to shoot that you can shoot a lot, since you probably are not as good of a shot and will need to fire many rounds. Regular Army units do not get enough time on the range, and while this certainly needs to be improved, a compromise between stopping power (bullet weight) and ease of shooting is not all that bad. It might not be the best thing out there, but the 5.56 is a capable round in the hands of a novice and that is a big plus in its corner.
Posted by: scipio at February 23, 2007 01:56 AM (MagUj)
14
Great post and comments. But, now the lefties may argue Bush and Rummy selected the wrong rifles for all Army needs. It would be just like them.
Posted by: Fred Beloit at February 23, 2007 09:25 AM (Z7x7c)
15
When I was deployed with my Reserve unit to Iraq in August 2004 we went with only an M9 pistol issued. I started the first several trips of over 180 convoys in a Chevy Suburban with a borrowed AK 47 as my weapon.
As soldiers, we had an amazing ability to make due with the tools at hand. The Guard and Reserve have been doing that for years in innovative training, management, operations - much of which was due to significant funding shortfalls at the hands of DOD. Soldiers make due, work to improve their situation and impliment any improvements as they go. They are vaery adaptive to adjutsting to the requirements with the tools at hand.
The Arkansas Guard is doing the prudent thing - they are identifing the desired state for equipment...will work with what they obtain and will soldier as always.
By the way - the best rifle is the HK 416 that SOCOM is using - much better and reliable - however not a standard issue rifle and a foreign manufacturer.
Posted by: stan68ar at February 23, 2007 10:02 AM (Ns25I)
16
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 02/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at February 23, 2007 11:30 AM (6+obf)
17
Jawa Report has this story this morning of the suicide bomber at the hospital dressed as a doctor from Afghanistan. I think its relevant.
"As ANP forces chased the suspect, Coalition forces verbally instructed him to stop. When he did not, they engaged with small arms fire, hitting the bomber several times. A U.S. Soldier wrestled him to the ground, restraining him long enough to allow the crowd of people to move safely away. He was able to break free from the bomber prior to the explosion. He sustained only minor injuries from the blast."
Hard to say from the situation, but one might think that having to wrestle a suicider to the ground AFTER he's been shot several times would be unnecessary.
No civilians were injured and a couple soldiers suffered relatively minor injuries.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 23, 2007 11:49 AM (oC8nQ)
18
I work for the Army (NOT in Public Affairs, so here are a few facts:
- The big stuff (mortars, artillery, etc.) is kept in Iraq and rotated between units. If the ANG guy is saying that they don't have equipment to train on, that is one thing, but they do have the tools to fight when they get there.
- Troops prefer to carry the M4 because of the collapsible stock. The M16 was invented before the advent of body armor and you can't get a good sight picture while wearing armor. I know some Vietnam vets (I am from that era, myself) will point out that we had the old Kevlar flak vest, but the M16 was invented before that item.
- Heard all the "can't hit sh*t" and "won't penetrate sh*t" arguments. All true. Doesn't mean anything since DOD is more interested in buying fancy airplanes and ships than new rifles. In the Army, we prioritize body armor and armored trucks/HMMWVs before new guns. Sorry, guys. That is the priority and we are sticking with it.
- Lots of troops carry and use AK-47's on patrol. Not precisely kosher, but the local commander makes that call.
Posted by: olddawg at February 23, 2007 11:59 AM (wAz0d)
19
"Lots of troops carry and use AK-47's on patrol."
I wouldn't use the term lots. IMHO, local commanders may allow it, but I think it shows a lack of unit dicipline. What self-respecting NCO would carry an AK if his troops had M4s. What does that say about having faith in your equipment?
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 23, 2007 02:15 PM (oC8nQ)
20
As a proud CarpetBaggerReport regular, I found this article incredibly well-written and the comments fascinating. I think CY is right: "preferred" does not mean right, although he could have made that point without spillng so much bile; and Mike and Bohica also make excellent points. There's a discussion of this issue in the book "Blackhawk Down" that was very interesting, where the soldiers in Somalia preferred shotguns to M-16s (I think) because the M-16s were too powerful, the bullets passing through the enemy, whereas the shotguns dropped them in their tracks.
Posted by: angry young man at February 27, 2007 12:49 PM (vC1jc)
21
Angry again you show your ignorance or shall I say your lack of understanding of military weaponry and tactics. A shot gun is used at relative close range and has the capability of disabling a couple of people at the same time. It is not about the speed of the round it's about the diameter of the projectile that gives you the "Nock Down" power that the soldier's are talking about. Why do you think law enforcement changed from the 9mm to the 40mm. again stick to something that your good at. What ever that is?
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 01, 2007 09:47 AM (a/5fw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Duke Lacrosse Player The Media Won't Focus On
Mary Katharine Ham posts a touching tribute to Army Ranger Jimmy Regan... the ultimate Duke lacrosse player, killed by a roadside bomb on February 9 in northern Iraq his fourth combat tour.
Regan's mourning father notes:
"What is written in the papers and what is being politicized out there by our candidates is undermining our service," said James Regan, a senior vice president at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a Manhattan financial services investment bank.
"These gentlemen that are out there are mission-focused," he said of the troops. "They're trying to do the best job they possibly can. There have been mistakes made, why even list them? ... You cannot put men in the field of battle and then change your mind and go out as a whip-dog. Let the men do their job."
I'm fairly certain that last line was directed at Okinawa Jack, Blinky Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats that are desperately
trying to think of ways to lose the war in Iraq.
Make sure you
read the whole thing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:25 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I just searched Google news - five (5) stories about him; inclucing the one in M.K.Ham's post!
Who says the MSM/DNC does not present all sides of a story!???@#$%!
11 months ago there were literally hundreds on the Duke Rape that was a fabricated by the MSM/DNC and Nifong!
Rathergate has had no impact on 60 years of bigotry in the MSM/DNC. Thank God for MK Ham or we'd never get the real stories on the Duke lax men!
The real good news is that the MSM/DNC has seen its market share decline for 30 years. Many are near death. And they deserve to die with things like this.
Posted by: Rodney A Stanton at February 22, 2007 11:37 AM (la4NL)
2
Interesting about where this young man's father works. Keefe, Bruyette & Woods used to have offices in the World Trade Center; 67 of their 172 employees died on 9/11. I wonder how much influence that had on his decision to enlist right from college...
Posted by: Kris, in New England at February 22, 2007 11:42 AM (/cAaB)
3
A large proportion of the military shares Murtha's and Pelosi's misgivings about the war.
"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year"
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Also see
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php
If 72% of the troops think they should leave within a year, how do you figure that Murtha and Pelosi are not supporting the troops? Much less is is it accurate to imply that they are traitors.
Posted by: Lex Steele at February 22, 2007 01:07 PM (/RSUi)
4
The father was working at the company I work for now at the time of the attack. We were accross the street from the World Trade Center in the World Financial Center.
Posted by: Ed Colletta at February 23, 2007 03:21 PM (9UEu0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 21, 2007
Chicago Cousins Plotted Iraqi Terror Attacks
And then there were five:
Two cousins were arrested here Wednesday on charges of conspiring to commit terrorist acts against American military personnel in Iraq, as well as others abroad, in an Islamic holy war against the United States and its allies.
The defendants, Zubair A. Ahmed, 27, and Khaleel Ahmed, 26, were taken into custody at their Chicago homes after a federal grand jury in Cleveland returned a fresh indictment in a pending terrorism case in which three Ohio men are already awaiting trial in Toledo.
The new indictment accuses the two Chicago men of plotting with the Ohioans “to kill or maim persons in locations outside of the United States,” including members of the armed forces serving in Iraq.
I'm going out on a limb and guessing they didn't vote Bush/Cheney in '04.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:35 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The point that I think that posters here will ignore is that it looks like the criminal justice system is up to the task of dealing with possible terrorist activity.
Give them their day in court. If they're guilty, deal with them harshly, but follow the rules.
The rule of law is one of the things that's supposed to make us better than the bad guys.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 22, 2007 12:07 AM (Exlue)
2
it looks like the criminal justice system is up to the task of dealing with possible terrorist activity.
Once they're caught, sure.
How about splodydopes going off at mall?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 22, 2007 12:18 AM (HDpFt)
3
I'm thinking of some names...Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols...should we track down and intern all white protestant males in the US to prevent future terrorist attacks?
Posted by: Fritz at February 22, 2007 02:05 AM (kc5Vp)
4
Fritz, that's a terrible idea. I hope you don't vote. My ideas are very different than yours.
Posted by: brando at February 22, 2007 03:46 AM (uZ35s)
5
Posted by Doc Washboard at February 22, 2007 12:07 AM
That's the way it's supposed to work. They are already in the country and were caught by the Justice system. Not in a war-zone on a battlefield outside the country. Bit of a difference there.
Why would you think we would ignore that glaring fact?
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 22, 2007 06:13 AM (a/5fw)
6
Retired Navy:
I'm saying that because of Jose Padilla. He was picked up in Chicago--certainly not a foreign battlefield--but labeled an "enemy combatant," and the government has fought hard to refuse him his constitutional rights.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 22, 2007 09:18 AM (fSkMU)
7
So what insight does that give you that the posters here will ignore that the Justice System should take care of it?
Padilla is now in the Justice system (he should have been all along in my opinion unless caught on the battle field).
I am a poster here, I am conservative, why are you trying to speak for me? I never tried to speak for you, I welcome DEBATE, not one-sided diatribe about how bad/narrow-minded/opinionated we are. If you have a question, just ask, we will give our opinions, that's what this forum is for.
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 22, 2007 10:24 AM (JSetw)
8
Retired Navy:
I generalized, but I did it based on having read and posted here for a while now. I've debated these issues here with a number of people, and my characterization was based on what they wrote.
I'm sorry if I unfairly put words in your mouth.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 22, 2007 02:04 PM (/Wery)
9
Fair enough. I've read this blog for a long time as well, generally don't contribute much but do like an honest debate.
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 22, 2007 02:23 PM (PJ4Iq)
10
If CY readers are interested in these guys, then they should be quite interested in this donor to the Republican Party being charged with attempts to fund terrorist training camps:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/16/terror/main2488520.shtml
Bet he DID vote Bush/Cheney in '04!
Posted by: Pennypacker at February 22, 2007 11:53 PM (acgYa)
11
Posted by Pennypacker at February 22, 2007 11:53 PM
Doesn't matter who they are or who they claim. Republican, Democrat, Independant, Green, whatever. Wrong is wrong.
I do find it ironic that the press put that paragraph at the end of the article though, you don't see Democratic affiliations on the end of articles for those associated in that direction.
Press Bias?
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 23, 2007 06:02 AM (WGcw3)
12
Most terror suspects don't have associations with either party. That's what makes this guy unusual.
Posted by: Pennypacker at February 23, 2007 12:00 PM (acgYa)
13
why do some people confuse timothy mcveigh with muslim terrorists? Fritz?
Muslim terrorrist in this country and abroad consistently point to the quran and sunnah to support their vision, mcveigh assigned patriotism as his reason. moreover, I bet you found it difficult to site a non-muslim terrorrist in the first place, before oklahoma city who else would you have named?
I will introduce you to a word that leads people to believe that Islam preaches terrorrism as a doctrine: history. particularly recent history. with the exception of the IRA, christian terrorism is non existent and even the IRA was restricted to britain, it wasnt exported.
Since mcveigh have you seen any other white protestant males doing such things? No, because we disapprove, they didnt have a following, these muslim terrorrists do!
get a grip!
Posted by: TJ at February 26, 2007 10:42 PM (np6XG)
14
with the exception of the IRA, christian terrorism is non existent
The KKK. But maybe they're not allowed in the club, despite the crosses they burn.
How about Eric Rudolph, the bomber protesting abortion and homosexuality? There are other anti-abortion killers, and you have to admit that they're Christian extremists.
There are other white supremacists who count themselves among the flock. Do their crimes count as terror acts?
Posted by: Pennypacker at February 27, 2007 12:00 AM (acgYa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Experts Warn British Drawdown Could Lead to Violence
I thought folks like John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi were telling us that a withdrawal from Iraq would result in a peaceful nation of lollipops and bunnies.
Obviously, I
misunderstood:
Britain's planned reduction in its force in southern Iraq could empower Iran and lead to more bloodshed between rival Shiite Muslim groups, analysts warned Wednesday.
The area around Basra is less violent than Baghdad, and sectarian killings are rare, in part because it is overwhelmingly Shiite. But the government's authority there is rivaled by armed groups that are "thoroughly intertwined with criminal enterprises," according to a report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
"In the coming year, the drawdown of British forces in the deep south will likely be accompanied by an upsurge of factional violence as the long-delayed fight for local supremacy begins in earnest," said the report, written by Iraq security specialists Michael Knights and Ed Williams.
Of course, these guys are just Iraq security specialists, so they probably don't know near as much as Okinawa Jack and Blinky.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:22 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've heard neither Murtha nor Pelosi say that everything was going to be snuggles and rainbows if we pulled out. Their point is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
A wrong action is not turned into a right action by infinitely prolonging it.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 22, 2007 12:09 AM (Exlue)
2
A wrong action is not turned into a right action by infinitely prolonging it.
So you're cool with the millions dead genocide thing then?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 22, 2007 12:19 AM (HDpFt)
3
"I've heard neither Murtha . . . say that everything was going to be snuggles and rainbows if we pulled out."
--Doc Washboard
"The minute we're gone they will take care of al Qaeda by themselves," Murtha said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "Al Qaeda will not even be a factor in Iraq once the United States is gone."
--John Murtha
Posted by: Daryl Herbert at February 22, 2007 03:38 AM (YvLui)
4
I saw nothing about "snuggles" or "rainbows" there, Daryl. Try again.
Purple:
Iraq was about September 11, Cheney implied again and again.
Oh, wait: now it's about WMDs.
Oh, wait: now it's about getting Saddam out of power.
Oh, wait: now it's about genocide.
I suspect your concern for a hypothetical future genocide in Iraq (as opposed to the actual deaths of our soldiers) is fueled by your desire to find some rationale--any at all--to be in Iraq. If the genocide meme fizzles out, you'll find another, just as you likely have again and again since 2003.
Before the war, our soldiers were not dying in Iraq. Now they are. IEDs were not killing dozens on a daily basis. Now they are.
I'm thinking that some of those soldiers should be over here protecting our ports and borders, just in case some terrorist decides to fight us over here instead of over there. It has happened. It will probably happen again.
I don't like seeing innocents die. It bothers me most of all, though, to see innocents die at our hands. What do we say? "I'm sorry you're dead, Iraqi family, but I'm sure you'll appreciate the [fill in the blank] we've brought to your country"?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 22, 2007 09:30 AM (fSkMU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Raceless Female Raped by Raceless Male at a Party Hosted By a Raceless Fraternity in the Same City Where Rich White Boys Raped A Poor Black Stripper
I'd provide more details, but the News & Observer still can't seem to find any.
Update: It's even more ironic when you consider the
N&O headline: "Warrant reveals details in rape case."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:14 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Given the 60 year record of bigotry in the MSM/DCN the answers are clera. Victim - white; rapist - black. When a criminal's race is not mentioned you knows the race is black.
Posted by: Rodney A Stanton at February 21, 2007 11:06 PM (X3BMp)
2
I found a detail when I googled "Phi Beta Sigma Duke"
Phi Beta Sigmas at Duke
Not sure what it means or what bearing it has on the way the story was reported.
Posted by: spacemonkey at February 21, 2007 11:10 PM (qSKHX)
3
'Twas as everyone conceived.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/02/arrest-in-rape-case.html
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1208088/
Posted by: Jeebus at February 21, 2007 11:17 PM (dn2pJ)
4
I'm glad you posted this because I know so many "white boys" who have been falsely accused and/or been sent to court with questionable legal representation and a racist jury. I'm glad you're the champion of this glaring injustice. You should feel proud.
Posted by: Fritz at February 22, 2007 02:00 AM (kc5Vp)
5
Yeah, thank god someone's standing up for the white boys... "confederate yankyee," indeed.
Yawn. Grown up.
Posted by: p00f at February 22, 2007 02:26 AM (Om0xJ)
6
Yeah, thank god someone's standing up for the white boys... "confederate yankee," indeed.
Yawn. Grown up.
Posted by: p00f at February 22, 2007 02:27 AM (Om0xJ)
7
The lack of details is pretty damn amusing BUT considering the 'outrage' over the MSM's rush to judgment, it would prudent for us in the 'sphere to always try to use the word 'accused'.
I remember some years back when the WaPo ran a piece asking for help in locating three suspects. The gave us readers all sorts of quasi-helpful descriptions and details, except of course the second most helpful of them all (outside of gender); race. I'm sure you can guess why that was.
Posted by: Eric at February 22, 2007 03:24 AM (kZGNl)
8
"I'm glad you posted this because I know so many "white boys" who have been falsely accused and/or been sent to court with questionable legal representation and a racist jury. I'm glad you're the champion of this glaring injustice. You should feel proud."
"Yeah, thank god someone's standing up for the white boys... "confederate yankyee," indeed.
Yawn. Grown up."
Notice how when an example of obvious racial bias is produced, the supporters of this racial bias respond with... more stereotyping and racial bias! Thanks for continuing to demonstrate that present day racism come from the left.
Posted by: Collin at February 22, 2007 03:27 AM (jzRmD)
9
How come no one has talked about the privledged black students. They go to Duke don't they? I would assume that their parents have money right?
With respect to the defense of not mention race in this case I think it all comes down to the fact that you cannot make up for past injustices by subjecting whites to those injustices and saying too bad.
If you defend a person's rights it shouldn't matter what race the victim or the accussed is.
Posted by: maddog at February 22, 2007 07:05 AM (hF3us)
10
Go to the website spacemonkey linked, go to gallery, some interesting names for the group pics.
Posted by: kamatu at February 22, 2007 07:17 AM (sMJ3a)
11
Phi Beta Sigma - black fraternity but don't let that little secret out to the News & Observer...LOL!
Posted by: juandos at February 22, 2007 07:24 AM (OSvqL)
12
Soviet citizens prided themselves on their ability to read between the lines in their own press in order to figure out what the journalists had left out. The two major newspapers "Pravda" (truth) and "Isvestija" (news) gave rise to the jest: "V izvestijakh n'et pravdy, v pravde n'et izvestij"--"In the news there is no truth, in the truth there is no news."
It's a pity free and sovereign Americans now must do the same--and our presses aren't even state owned.
That's the world the reality-based community has given us.
Posted by: Brett at February 22, 2007 07:42 AM (uUJDZ)
13
Go to the website spacemonkey linked, go to gallery, some interesting names for the group pics.
Not any more.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis at February 22, 2007 07:56 AM (67v4v)
14
Meanwhile, if you want to help out those other three non-faceless and quite-raced defendants (who are still facing a 30-year sentence, and who are now being investigated by special prosecutors with a habit of putting the state's interest ahead of justice), you can put your mouse to good work :
Petition for Justice in the Duke Lacrosse Case
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/208340697
You can be part of that new "army of Davids" from the techno world which is giving corrupt bureaucrats and the biased media fits.
Posted by: Seahawk at February 22, 2007 09:00 AM (rRntz)
15
"I know so many 'white boys' who have been falsely accused"
It never fails to amaze me how instictive is it for some on the left to desire everyone to be equally subjected to injustice. There was no implication that anyone should have to suffer the prosecutorial injustices visited upon the Duke lacrosse players. Nor was there implication that any injustice was OK depending upon the accused's race. There was, however, a clearly demonstrated difference between the way the MSM handled one accusation (black accuser - white suspects) and another (white accuser - black suspect). I assume the blog proprietor would, like me, prefer that both cases had been handled with the discression, diligence and professionalism that both the accuser and accused deserve, especially in the case of charges that carry so high a social price even if later disproved. I agree that it is instructive that the MSM in one case recognizes the presumption of innocence while in the other reveling in conjecture, inuendo and border-line slander.
Posted by: submandave at February 22, 2007 12:39 PM (0135J)
16
in the same spirit, I wonder if the recent events in Las Vegas had occurred during, say, a NASCAR all-start event rather than the NBA all-star event, how very different the reporting/editorializing would be. Of course NASCAR does routinely have 100,000+ people events without incident, whereas the NBA. . .
And likewise, a girl getting raped at a fraternity, is not really a 'story' - and a white girl getting raped at a black fraterning is story anti-matter, the story that dare not ever speak its name. but wealthy, good looking white athletes raping a black stripper, now that sounds like the kind of story a thousand pomo journo parasites can sink their fangs into.
Posted by: antifritz at February 22, 2007 04:08 PM (V/d7C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another One Down
Undercover Israeli soldiers disguised as Palestinians ambushed and killed Mahmoud Abu Obeid today, a leader of either the Islamic Jihad if you want to listen to U.S news media, or a leader of the Al-Quds Brigades if you'd rather trust Palestine Today.
The second account provides the details:
Eyewitness reports said that an undercover Israeli army unit entered the city using a civilian car with Palestinian license plates. Troops shot Abu Obeid at close range in the city center in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Witnesses added that after the troops shot Abu Obeid from the car, one of the unit members walked out of the car and shot Abu Obeid a few more times to confirm his death. During Abu Obeid's funeral, the Islamic Jihad said it would have revenge on his assassins. Israeli army sources claimed that Abu Obeid was planning what they described as a large-scale bombing in Tel Aviv.
Paul Campos could not be reached for comment, as he is currently drowning in his
own embarrassment.
"Beclowning" must
really hurt.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:43 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Witnesses added that after the troops shot Abu Obeid from the car, one of the unit members walked out of the car and shot Abu Obeid a few more times to confirm his death.
I like that part, 3 shots to the head does it for me. Dead men tell no tales.
Posted by: 1sttofight at February 21, 2007 02:32 PM (braWD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 166 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1017 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0792 seconds, 154 records returned.
Page size 138 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.