U.S. knew agent going to airport
Mar 9th 2005, 1:42 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
BruceB wrote:
>
> I gotta great idea... Why don't we start a thread that has absolutely
> nothing to do with European travel and see how many suckers post to it.
<boggle> people actually travel to europe willingly?
redc1c4,
(who'd a thunk it? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
>
> I gotta great idea... Why don't we start a thread that has absolutely
> nothing to do with European travel and see how many suckers post to it.
<boggle> people actually travel to europe willingly?
redc1c4,
(who'd a thunk it? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Mar 9th 2005, 1:50 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
"Bill Gamelson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:dtLXd.6300$ju.5607@okepread07...
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>Berlusconi said that according to information from the person driving
>>the car, the vehicle was traveling at a low speed and braked very
>>swiftly when a light shone on it.
> But the Italian news reporter stated that there were no lighs, no warnings
> and that the driver floored it when he saw U.S. troops.
Where did you read that?
news:dtLXd.6300$ju.5607@okepread07...
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>Berlusconi said that according to information from the person driving
>>the car, the vehicle was traveling at a low speed and braked very
>>swiftly when a light shone on it.
> But the Italian news reporter stated that there were no lighs, no warnings
> and that the driver floored it when he saw U.S. troops.
Where did you read that?
Mar 9th 2005, 2:13 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
"Eyeball Kid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:090320051827207825%[email protected] ...
> In article <[email protected] .com>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Evidently you still can't read. This is *said to be* the car."
>> Yeah, grasp at any straw you like. I'm not interested.
>> "Yeah right, a website of right-wing nuts."
>> The pictures are directly from an Italian newspaper microbrain. Do
>> they become phony pictures when they are transfered to a conservative
>> site. Man you are one clueless idiot.
>> "Scroll down and you'll find what yesterday these nuts claimed it was
>> the car in question."
>> They corrected that long ago.
> If this were the car, then the appearance SUPPORTS Sgrena's view
> that she was a target. Why? When you look at the lack of damage on the
> front and left side of the car, you have to wonder how the chaotic
> firing didn't leave its traces. Where's the shattered windshield? If US
> troops were trying to stop a car that they thought was a problem, why
> didn't they aim at the DRIVER of the car? Where's the shattered glass,
> or the multiple holes in the glass?
> Yet ONE bullet found its way through the head of an agent who was
> laying on top of Sgrena in the back seat-- the same bullet that wounded
> Sgrena. All while the windshield in front of the driver is virtually
> unmarked.
> If this picture is evidence, then that's what the evidence tells me.
> The evidence leaves implications of the motive. By the lack of damage,
> the intent of the US was NOT to stop a car that had suspected
> insurgents in it. It was to kill a passenger in the back seat.
> E. K.
Mr. Eyeball, your expectation of seeing the windscreen shot out is based on
faulty data, most likely TV and movies. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
is to *STOP* the vehicle. If you kill the driver of a moving vehicle, the
result is an uncontrolled moving vehicle (killing or incapatating the
operator does not stop the vehicle, frequently the result is an increase in
speed due to the now deceased operator's foot becoming a literal dead weight
on the accelerator), nothing else. SOP is to shoot the engine, thus
depriving the vehicle of power, stopping it. I have, over the past 30+
tears, examined numerous vehicles stopped by this method (in various
countries, from Northern Ireland to Rhodesia, only 3 by US forces) and of
these, fully 85% of the perforations in the vehicle were in the frontal area
of the vehicle (the remaining 15% were scattered throughout the remainder of
the vehicle...a moving target is quite difficult to hit accurately, ask any
aerial gunner, bird hunter, rabbit hunter or trap shooter). Without
verifiable photos of the actual vehicle (from all angles) or ability to
personally examine the vehicle, I cannot state that this is the case in this
instance, but it fits with the established SOP and the historical result of
this type of incident. All we can do until the findings are released is to
wait, mourn the dead and prepare our 'lessons learned' reports...unfinished
until the results are in.
--
Paul H. Lemmen
"...our best still don battle dress..."
from 'A Pittance of Time' by Terry Kelly
news:090320051827207825%[email protected] ...
> In article <[email protected] .com>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Evidently you still can't read. This is *said to be* the car."
>> Yeah, grasp at any straw you like. I'm not interested.
>> "Yeah right, a website of right-wing nuts."
>> The pictures are directly from an Italian newspaper microbrain. Do
>> they become phony pictures when they are transfered to a conservative
>> site. Man you are one clueless idiot.
>> "Scroll down and you'll find what yesterday these nuts claimed it was
>> the car in question."
>> They corrected that long ago.
> If this were the car, then the appearance SUPPORTS Sgrena's view
> that she was a target. Why? When you look at the lack of damage on the
> front and left side of the car, you have to wonder how the chaotic
> firing didn't leave its traces. Where's the shattered windshield? If US
> troops were trying to stop a car that they thought was a problem, why
> didn't they aim at the DRIVER of the car? Where's the shattered glass,
> or the multiple holes in the glass?
> Yet ONE bullet found its way through the head of an agent who was
> laying on top of Sgrena in the back seat-- the same bullet that wounded
> Sgrena. All while the windshield in front of the driver is virtually
> unmarked.
> If this picture is evidence, then that's what the evidence tells me.
> The evidence leaves implications of the motive. By the lack of damage,
> the intent of the US was NOT to stop a car that had suspected
> insurgents in it. It was to kill a passenger in the back seat.
> E. K.
Mr. Eyeball, your expectation of seeing the windscreen shot out is based on
faulty data, most likely TV and movies. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
is to *STOP* the vehicle. If you kill the driver of a moving vehicle, the
result is an uncontrolled moving vehicle (killing or incapatating the
operator does not stop the vehicle, frequently the result is an increase in
speed due to the now deceased operator's foot becoming a literal dead weight
on the accelerator), nothing else. SOP is to shoot the engine, thus
depriving the vehicle of power, stopping it. I have, over the past 30+
tears, examined numerous vehicles stopped by this method (in various
countries, from Northern Ireland to Rhodesia, only 3 by US forces) and of
these, fully 85% of the perforations in the vehicle were in the frontal area
of the vehicle (the remaining 15% were scattered throughout the remainder of
the vehicle...a moving target is quite difficult to hit accurately, ask any
aerial gunner, bird hunter, rabbit hunter or trap shooter). Without
verifiable photos of the actual vehicle (from all angles) or ability to
personally examine the vehicle, I cannot state that this is the case in this
instance, but it fits with the established SOP and the historical result of
this type of incident. All we can do until the findings are released is to
wait, mourn the dead and prepare our 'lessons learned' reports...unfinished
until the results are in.
--
Paul H. Lemmen
"...our best still don battle dress..."
from 'A Pittance of Time' by Terry Kelly
Mar 9th 2005, 2:31 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
In article <[email protected]>, "Paul H. Lemmen"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Mr. Eyeball, your expectation of seeing the windscreen shot out is based
> on
> faulty data, most likely TV and movies. Standard Operating Procedure
> (SOP)
> is to *STOP* the vehicle. If you kill the driver of a moving vehicle, the
> result is an uncontrolled moving vehicle (killing or incapatating the
> operator does not stop the vehicle, frequently the result is an increase
> in
> speed due to the now deceased operator's foot becoming a literal dead
> weight
> on the accelerator), nothing else.
You bring back both Mark Russell's comic explanation, and the grimmer
real concern, about why the "neutron bomb" (enhanced radiation weapon)
was not really a wonderful idea to stop the advancing armored hordes of
the Warsaw Pact.
As Russell put it, the idea was to have a weapon that killed people and
saved buildings. But if you use it, and it kills the tank crews, what
stops the tanks from driving into, and wrecking, buildings?
As I said, there was a grimmer reality. First, it must not be forgotten
that the ERW was still a nuclear weapon, with associated thermal and
blast effects -- just unusual amount of ionizing radiation for the
yield. Tanks close to ground zero might well be put out of action by
blast, such that the radiation effects on their crews would be
insignificant compared with the massive trauma.
Somewhat further out from ground zero, there would be a zone where the
tanks would survive the blast, but only attenuate some of the radiation.
Yes, someone that takes 10 kilorems (I still haven't gotten used to
Greys and Sieverts) will collapse and never wake up. A little farther
out, however, you'd have people exposed to 3-5 kilorems.
That is still enough radiation to induce the 100% fatal central nervous
system form of radiation sickness, but, after an initial incapacitation
of 30 minutes or so, they would be able to function for perhaps 24-48
hours. If they had any kind of dosimeter, they would know, with
certainty, that they were walking (or driving) dead men.
I don't want to think about the conduct of such troops.
SOP is to shoot the engine, thus
> depriving the vehicle of power, stopping it. I have, over the past 30+
> tears, examined numerous vehicles stopped by this method (in various
> countries, from Northern Ireland to Rhodesia, only 3 by US forces) and of
> these, fully 85% of the perforations in the vehicle were in the frontal
> area
> of the vehicle (the remaining 15% were scattered throughout the remainder
> of
> the vehicle...a moving target is quite difficult to hit accurately, ask
> any
> aerial gunner, bird hunter, rabbit hunter or trap shooter). Without
> verifiable photos of the actual vehicle (from all angles) or ability to
> personally examine the vehicle, I cannot state that this is the case in
> this
> instance, but it fits with the established SOP and the historical result
> of
> this type of incident. All we can do until the findings are released is
> to
> wait, mourn the dead and prepare our 'lessons learned'
> reports...unfinished
> until the results are in.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Mr. Eyeball, your expectation of seeing the windscreen shot out is based
> on
> faulty data, most likely TV and movies. Standard Operating Procedure
> (SOP)
> is to *STOP* the vehicle. If you kill the driver of a moving vehicle, the
> result is an uncontrolled moving vehicle (killing or incapatating the
> operator does not stop the vehicle, frequently the result is an increase
> in
> speed due to the now deceased operator's foot becoming a literal dead
> weight
> on the accelerator), nothing else.
You bring back both Mark Russell's comic explanation, and the grimmer
real concern, about why the "neutron bomb" (enhanced radiation weapon)
was not really a wonderful idea to stop the advancing armored hordes of
the Warsaw Pact.
As Russell put it, the idea was to have a weapon that killed people and
saved buildings. But if you use it, and it kills the tank crews, what
stops the tanks from driving into, and wrecking, buildings?
As I said, there was a grimmer reality. First, it must not be forgotten
that the ERW was still a nuclear weapon, with associated thermal and
blast effects -- just unusual amount of ionizing radiation for the
yield. Tanks close to ground zero might well be put out of action by
blast, such that the radiation effects on their crews would be
insignificant compared with the massive trauma.
Somewhat further out from ground zero, there would be a zone where the
tanks would survive the blast, but only attenuate some of the radiation.
Yes, someone that takes 10 kilorems (I still haven't gotten used to
Greys and Sieverts) will collapse and never wake up. A little farther
out, however, you'd have people exposed to 3-5 kilorems.
That is still enough radiation to induce the 100% fatal central nervous
system form of radiation sickness, but, after an initial incapacitation
of 30 minutes or so, they would be able to function for perhaps 24-48
hours. If they had any kind of dosimeter, they would know, with
certainty, that they were walking (or driving) dead men.
I don't want to think about the conduct of such troops.
SOP is to shoot the engine, thus
> depriving the vehicle of power, stopping it. I have, over the past 30+
> tears, examined numerous vehicles stopped by this method (in various
> countries, from Northern Ireland to Rhodesia, only 3 by US forces) and of
> these, fully 85% of the perforations in the vehicle were in the frontal
> area
> of the vehicle (the remaining 15% were scattered throughout the remainder
> of
> the vehicle...a moving target is quite difficult to hit accurately, ask
> any
> aerial gunner, bird hunter, rabbit hunter or trap shooter). Without
> verifiable photos of the actual vehicle (from all angles) or ability to
> personally examine the vehicle, I cannot state that this is the case in
> this
> instance, but it fits with the established SOP and the historical result
> of
> this type of incident. All we can do until the findings are released is
> to
> wait, mourn the dead and prepare our 'lessons learned'
> reports...unfinished
> until the results are in.
Mar 9th 2005, 3:19 pm
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
"LawsonE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:oBOXd.70772$Tt.45396@fed1read05...
> "Bill Gamelson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:dtLXd.6300$ju.5607@okepread07...
>> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>Berlusconi said that according to information from the person driving
>>>the car, the vehicle was traveling at a low speed and braked very
>>>swiftly when a light shone on it.
>> But the Italian news reporter stated that there were no lighs, no
>> warnings and that the driver floored it when he saw U.S. troops.
> Where did you read that?
Sgrena is a Communist (yes, I meant that literally) dingbat responsible for
going to a country SHE WAS WARNED BY FELLOW LEFT-WING REPORTERS WOULD BE
EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO TRAVEL WITHOUT ESCORT. Due to her callous attitude,
she endangered herself, her rescuers, and thanks to the $8 million bribe
paid to the head choppers, our soldiers. Sgrena is a MORON.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.zachtei.nl/2005/03/08/000670.html
'Be careful not to get kidnapped,' I told the female Italian journalist
sitting next to me in the small plane that was headed for Baghdad. 'Oh no,'
she said. 'That won't happen. We are siding with the oppressed Iraqi people.
No Iraqi would kidnap us.'
"It doesn't sound very nice to be critical of a fellow reporter. But Sgrena's
attitude is a disgrace for journalism. Or didn't she tell me back in the
plane that 'common journalists such as yourself' simply do not support the
Iraqi people? 'The Americans are the biggest enemies of mankind,' the three
women behind me had told me, for Sgrena travelled to Iraq with two Italian
colleagues who hated the Americans as well."
-----------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Internatio...=563069&page=1
"But, according to the senior U.S. military official, the car was traveling
at speeds of more than 100 mph. The driver almost lost control several times
before the shooting as the car hydroplaned through large puddles, the
official told ABC News. The car had not gone through any previous
checkpoints, the source added."
-----------------------------------------------------
From Il Moron's own article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe.../il.manifesto/
The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and
almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was
liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad
and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would
really be a tale I would not be able to tell.
-----------------------------------------------------
It's dark. It's raining. Il Moron is traveling down the most dangerous road
in Bagdad at 100 mph. She ADMITS they were driving recklessly, and she
thought it was funny. Soldiers manning the checkpoint are continually
threatened by headcutters driving car bombs. The soldiers have no idea Il
Moron is in the car (or was it a truck? She can't seem to make up her mind
about this). They had just seconds to act, and they acted in a way any other
person would in the same situation.
news:oBOXd.70772$Tt.45396@fed1read05...
> "Bill Gamelson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:dtLXd.6300$ju.5607@okepread07...
>> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>Berlusconi said that according to information from the person driving
>>>the car, the vehicle was traveling at a low speed and braked very
>>>swiftly when a light shone on it.
>> But the Italian news reporter stated that there were no lighs, no
>> warnings and that the driver floored it when he saw U.S. troops.
> Where did you read that?
Sgrena is a Communist (yes, I meant that literally) dingbat responsible for
going to a country SHE WAS WARNED BY FELLOW LEFT-WING REPORTERS WOULD BE
EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO TRAVEL WITHOUT ESCORT. Due to her callous attitude,
she endangered herself, her rescuers, and thanks to the $8 million bribe
paid to the head choppers, our soldiers. Sgrena is a MORON.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.zachtei.nl/2005/03/08/000670.html
'Be careful not to get kidnapped,' I told the female Italian journalist
sitting next to me in the small plane that was headed for Baghdad. 'Oh no,'
she said. 'That won't happen. We are siding with the oppressed Iraqi people.
No Iraqi would kidnap us.'
"It doesn't sound very nice to be critical of a fellow reporter. But Sgrena's
attitude is a disgrace for journalism. Or didn't she tell me back in the
plane that 'common journalists such as yourself' simply do not support the
Iraqi people? 'The Americans are the biggest enemies of mankind,' the three
women behind me had told me, for Sgrena travelled to Iraq with two Italian
colleagues who hated the Americans as well."
-----------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Internatio...=563069&page=1
"But, according to the senior U.S. military official, the car was traveling
at speeds of more than 100 mph. The driver almost lost control several times
before the shooting as the car hydroplaned through large puddles, the
official told ABC News. The car had not gone through any previous
checkpoints, the source added."
-----------------------------------------------------
From Il Moron's own article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe.../il.manifesto/
The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and
almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was
liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad
and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would
really be a tale I would not be able to tell.
-----------------------------------------------------
It's dark. It's raining. Il Moron is traveling down the most dangerous road
in Bagdad at 100 mph. She ADMITS they were driving recklessly, and she
thought it was funny. Soldiers manning the checkpoint are continually
threatened by headcutters driving car bombs. The soldiers have no idea Il
Moron is in the car (or was it a truck? She can't seem to make up her mind
about this). They had just seconds to act, and they acted in a way any other
person would in the same situation.
Mar 9th 2005, 3:22 pm
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:27:20 -0800, Eyeball Kid
<[email protected]> wrote:
>If this were the car, then the appearance SUPPORTS Sgrena's view
>that she was a target. Why? When you look at the lack of damage on the
>front and left side of the car, you have to wonder how the chaotic
>firing didn't leave its traces. Where's the shattered windshield? If US
>troops were trying to stop a car that they thought was a problem, why
>didn't they aim at the DRIVER of the car? Where's the shattered glass,
>or the multiple holes in the glass?
Doctrine and ROE call for aimed shots at the engine. You cannot
reliably disable a vehicle by shooting at the driver because the
vehicles engine will continue to drive it forward.
>Yet ONE bullet found its way through the head of an agent who was
>laying on top of Sgrena in the back seat-- the same bullet that wounded
>Sgrena. All while the windshield in front of the driver is virtually
>unmarked.
Which supports the conclusion that they were firing at the engine.
>If this picture is evidence, then that's what the evidence tells me.
>The evidence leaves implications of the motive. By the lack of damage,
>the intent of the US was NOT to stop a car that had suspected
>insurgents in it. It was to kill a passenger in the back seat.
If the targets were the passengers then the shots would have been
through the windshield in order to maximize the probability of a
head/upper torso hit. (Again doctrine at work here.)
In fact, the picture is evidence of careful shooting on the part of
the US troops as bullets fired at an approaching target will tend to
strike high.
You don't know much about this subject - do you?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>If this were the car, then the appearance SUPPORTS Sgrena's view
>that she was a target. Why? When you look at the lack of damage on the
>front and left side of the car, you have to wonder how the chaotic
>firing didn't leave its traces. Where's the shattered windshield? If US
>troops were trying to stop a car that they thought was a problem, why
>didn't they aim at the DRIVER of the car? Where's the shattered glass,
>or the multiple holes in the glass?
Doctrine and ROE call for aimed shots at the engine. You cannot
reliably disable a vehicle by shooting at the driver because the
vehicles engine will continue to drive it forward.
>Yet ONE bullet found its way through the head of an agent who was
>laying on top of Sgrena in the back seat-- the same bullet that wounded
>Sgrena. All while the windshield in front of the driver is virtually
>unmarked.
Which supports the conclusion that they were firing at the engine.
>If this picture is evidence, then that's what the evidence tells me.
>The evidence leaves implications of the motive. By the lack of damage,
>the intent of the US was NOT to stop a car that had suspected
>insurgents in it. It was to kill a passenger in the back seat.
If the targets were the passengers then the shots would have been
through the windshield in order to maximize the probability of a
head/upper torso hit. (Again doctrine at work here.)
In fact, the picture is evidence of careful shooting on the part of
the US troops as bullets fired at an approaching target will tend to
strike high.
You don't know much about this subject - do you?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Mar 9th 2005, 3:25 pm
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:31:42 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>As I said, there was a grimmer reality. First, it must not be forgotten
>that the ERW was still a nuclear weapon, with associated thermal and
>blast effects -- just unusual amount of ionizing radiation for the
>yield. Tanks close to ground zero might well be put out of action by
>blast, such that the radiation effects on their crews would be
>insignificant compared with the massive trauma.
Actually a more accurate description would be that a neutron bomb was
a nuclear weapon where the lethal radii of blast, radiant heat and
radiation were the same.
The idea was to be able to use a smaller yield weapon and achieve the
same military effects with less collateral damage.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>As I said, there was a grimmer reality. First, it must not be forgotten
>that the ERW was still a nuclear weapon, with associated thermal and
>blast effects -- just unusual amount of ionizing radiation for the
>yield. Tanks close to ground zero might well be put out of action by
>blast, such that the radiation effects on their crews would be
>insignificant compared with the massive trauma.
Actually a more accurate description would be that a neutron bomb was
a nuclear weapon where the lethal radii of blast, radiant heat and
radiation were the same.
The idea was to be able to use a smaller yield weapon and achieve the
same military effects with less collateral damage.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Mar 9th 2005, 3:55 pm
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (remove underscore) wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:31:42 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >As I said, there was a grimmer reality. First, it must not be forgotten
> >that the ERW was still a nuclear weapon, with associated thermal and
> >blast effects -- just unusual amount of ionizing radiation for the
> >yield. Tanks close to ground zero might well be put out of action by
> >blast, such that the radiation effects on their crews would be
> >insignificant compared with the massive trauma.
>
> Actually a more accurate description would be that a neutron bomb was
> a nuclear weapon where the lethal radii of blast, radiant heat and
> radiation were the same.
I would have to disagree. While many don't understand that an ERW was
indeed a nuclear weapon (probably boosted, but not thermonuclear), the
idea was that the lethal radius of radiation would be greater than that
of the thermal and blast effects.
If the radii are the same, you'd get hard kills on the tanks with no
bonus against the crews. It wasn't just that it was a low-yield bomb,
but a low-yield bomb with enhanced prompt radiation (and probably
reduced fallout)
>
> The idea was to be able to use a smaller yield weapon and achieve the
> same military effects with less collateral damage.
[email protected] (remove underscore) wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:31:42 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >As I said, there was a grimmer reality. First, it must not be forgotten
> >that the ERW was still a nuclear weapon, with associated thermal and
> >blast effects -- just unusual amount of ionizing radiation for the
> >yield. Tanks close to ground zero might well be put out of action by
> >blast, such that the radiation effects on their crews would be
> >insignificant compared with the massive trauma.
>
> Actually a more accurate description would be that a neutron bomb was
> a nuclear weapon where the lethal radii of blast, radiant heat and
> radiation were the same.
I would have to disagree. While many don't understand that an ERW was
indeed a nuclear weapon (probably boosted, but not thermonuclear), the
idea was that the lethal radius of radiation would be greater than that
of the thermal and blast effects.
If the radii are the same, you'd get hard kills on the tanks with no
bonus against the crews. It wasn't just that it was a low-yield bomb,
but a low-yield bomb with enhanced prompt radiation (and probably
reduced fallout)
>
> The idea was to be able to use a smaller yield weapon and achieve the
> same military effects with less collateral damage.
Mar 9th 2005, 4:06 pm
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
"Paul H. Lemmen" wrote:
(snipage occurs, fore and aft.....)
> I have, over the past 30+ tears, ......
yer ghost typists @ w*rk again?
redc1c4,
who's got his own to deal with, now and again. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
(snipage occurs, fore and aft.....)
> I have, over the past 30+ tears, ......
yer ghost typists @ w*rk again?
redc1c4,
who's got his own to deal with, now and again. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Mar 9th 2005, 4:53 pm
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
In article <dtLXd.6300$ju.5607@okepread07>,
on Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:16:21 -0600,
Bill Gamelson [email protected] attempted to say .....
>
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >Berlusconi said that according to information from the person driving
> >the car, the vehicle was traveling at a low speed and braked very
> >swiftly when a light shone on it.
>
> But the Italian news reporter stated that there were no lighs, no warnings
> and that the driver floored it when he saw U.S. troops.
The driver floored it when he saw US troops ?
Was the driver just plain stupid ?
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
on Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:16:21 -0600,
Bill Gamelson [email protected] attempted to say .....
>
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >Berlusconi said that according to information from the person driving
> >the car, the vehicle was traveling at a low speed and braked very
> >swiftly when a light shone on it.
>
> But the Italian news reporter stated that there were no lighs, no warnings
> and that the driver floored it when he saw U.S. troops.
The driver floored it when he saw US troops ?
Was the driver just plain stupid ?
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Mar 9th 2005, 4:57 pm
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
In article <[email protected]>,
on Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:06:32 GMT,
redc1c4 [email protected] attempted to say .....
> "Paul H. Lemmen" wrote:
>
> (snipage occurs, fore and aft.....)
>
> > I have, over the past 30+ tears, ......
>
> yer ghost typists @ w*rk again?
At his grade I'm surpised he can string two correctly spelled words
together.....
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
on Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:06:32 GMT,
redc1c4 [email protected] attempted to say .....
> "Paul H. Lemmen" wrote:
>
> (snipage occurs, fore and aft.....)
>
> > I have, over the past 30+ tears, ......
>
> yer ghost typists @ w*rk again?
At his grade I'm surpised he can string two correctly spelled words
together.....
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Mar 9th 2005, 8:22 pm
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
"Tank Fixer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] k.net...
> The driver floored it when he saw US troops ?
> Was the driver just plain stupid ?
No, only the right-wing nutjobs who made up the
story are stupid.
news:[email protected] k.net...
> The driver floored it when he saw US troops ?
> Was the driver just plain stupid ?
No, only the right-wing nutjobs who made up the
story are stupid.
Mar 9th 2005, 8:34 pm
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
Paolo Pizzing his pants wrote:
>
> "Tank Fixer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] k.net...
>
> > The driver floored it when he saw US troops ?
> >
> > Was the driver just plain stupid ?
>
> No, only the right-wing nutjobs who made up the
> story are stupid.
and here i thought it was the third world media made up the whole
thing? nice of you to admit that your amateurs ****ed up large and
paid the price, regardless of who you blame for telling the wopers.
we won't be waiting up for the apology owed the soldiers you accused.
redc1c4,
(not that y'all have the moral courage to admit your errors anyway. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
>
> "Tank Fixer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] k.net...
>
> > The driver floored it when he saw US troops ?
> >
> > Was the driver just plain stupid ?
>
> No, only the right-wing nutjobs who made up the
> story are stupid.
and here i thought it was the third world media made up the whole
thing? nice of you to admit that your amateurs ****ed up large and
paid the price, regardless of who you blame for telling the wopers.
we won't be waiting up for the apology owed the soldiers you accused.
redc1c4,
(not that y'all have the moral courage to admit your errors anyway. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Mar 9th 2005, 8:41 pm
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
"redc1c4" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> No, only the right-wing nutjobs who made up the
>> story are stupid.
> and here i thought it was the third world media made up the whole
> thing? nice of you to admit that your amateurs ****ed up large and
> paid the price, regardless of who you blame for telling the wopers.
My amateurs? There's only two possibilities here: either the
US soldiers ****ed up or they deliberately tried to kill Sgrena.
In any other case, the US military wouldn't have to lie that
blatantly.
news:[email protected]...
>> No, only the right-wing nutjobs who made up the
>> story are stupid.
> and here i thought it was the third world media made up the whole
> thing? nice of you to admit that your amateurs ****ed up large and
> paid the price, regardless of who you blame for telling the wopers.
My amateurs? There's only two possibilities here: either the
US soldiers ****ed up or they deliberately tried to kill Sgrena.
In any other case, the US military wouldn't have to lie that
blatantly.
Mar 9th 2005, 10:59 pm
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. knew agent going to airport
"redc1c4" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Paul H. Lemmen" wrote:
> (snipage occurs, fore and aft.....)
>> I have, over the past 30+ tears, ......
> yer ghost typists @ w*rk again?
> redc1c4,
> who's got his own to deal with, now and again. %-)
> --
Fat fingerage does occur. Considering that the T and the Y are next to each
other.....
--
Paul H. Lemmen
"...our best still don battle dress..."
from 'A Pittance of Time' by Terry Kelly
news:[email protected]...
> "Paul H. Lemmen" wrote:
> (snipage occurs, fore and aft.....)
>> I have, over the past 30+ tears, ......
> yer ghost typists @ w*rk again?
> redc1c4,
> who's got his own to deal with, now and again. %-)
> --
Fat fingerage does occur. Considering that the T and the Y are next to each
other.....
--
Paul H. Lemmen
"...our best still don battle dress..."
from 'A Pittance of Time' by Terry Kelly
