BillB Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 When im still posting here in 2 years with many people asking the same questions as me i will remind you of this post and your stupid haste to slap infantile labels on posters you know so little about. Unlikley you will last that long here, given the fact that your total contribution to the site to date amounts to little more than causing disruption and annoyance. As for the second bit, well we have to judge on what you provide, and "stupid" and "infantile" just about sum up your contribution to what was shaping up to be an interesting discussion. However, it is quite possible you might be posing those questions somewhere because they are ones deliberately formulated to avoid any possiblity of satisfactory reply. Something trolls excel at, altho self-important individuals with little knowledge or real life experience in anything much tend to exhibit similar behaviour - it is good camouflage for vacuousness and poor critical thinking skills. Instead of constantly asking questions and answering questions with more of the same interspersed with statements of the blindingly obvious or self-indulgent navel gazing, how about trying the other tack and providing some verifiable evidence to back up your constant flow of innuendo, partial truth and deliberate provocations? And I mean more than just pasting links into your posts, not least because two of the four or so you have provided are ambiguous or even contradict the point your seemed to be making at the time. In short put up, or fcuk off and take your tiresome ramblings elsewhere. BillB
BillB Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Well im busy on many discussion boards and im sorry i have not gotten to that yet. Well to sum it up im a 25 year old South-African who likes studying and learning about almost any topic under the sun. Still not sure why you have to know so much about me before you will consider what i have to say. My arguments foundation can not be affected by wether you trust me or not or how you feel about my background. Stellar131677[/snapback] Stellar, you missed the words "smug", "arse", "pompous" and "other people's conventions do not apply to me" from your little resume I think.... Oh, and while you're at it, how about adding a bit more to your bottom signature. Then it can take up the whole screen with twaddle instead of just most of it. BillB
Rubberneck Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Hey Stellar, thanks for replying to my post. I guess you never had a friend blown to pieces by the son of a Saudi ambassador. Here's a hint about this site, you should listen up and play ball, or you'll have the bat jammed up your ass in no time. 1) There are serving military professionals on this board from numerous countries ranking from Private to Colonel, and we also have a number of retired soldiers in the same rank structure. We haven't had a General yet, but we'll get there. Or at least we don't know if we have a General, I suppose it's possible. 2) In addtion to the military professionals who are regular posters, we also have a number of distinguished authors covering military history and militaria in general. 3) This is not a democracy. This site is privately owned and managed/moderated by a select number of individuals who act as farily as possible. This site has been in existence for close to five years, so the moderators know pretty much every trick in the book when it comes to disruptive posting. Trust them, for now their eyes are squarely upon you. 4)Let's just say that posting American casualty counting is a touchy subject which needs a great deal of empirical data to back up. It may be a surprise to you, but some of the military professionals here actually get casualty updates every day, and have friends and family members serving throughout the military, including medical services. Bottom line - it's one thing to question something, but you better have some serious information backing up your claims, because if you don't you aren't going to be long for this board. 5)Now maybe you have a slightly better understanding of what this site is all about. We don't tolerate fools for very long, and buffoonery, of which are guilty of committing, is looked upon by the members of the staff as being a ticket out. So start providing some real data about your claims, or head back to Pretoria, Capetown, Johannesburg or whatever place in sun you reside in Sud Afrika. Simple enough?
R011 Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Posted by Rubberneck,Sun 9 Jan 2005 1245 Or at least we don't know if we have a General, I suppose it's possible.Supatra, a Thai officer who hasn't posted here in a while, was promoted from Colonel last year. She's currently involved in supressing the Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand.
Rocky Davis Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 1. Sir, Adam conducted personal attacks and involved examples that are tasteless and offensive. The rules exist to keep discussions civil, and I believe they should be followed. 2. If you neglect your due dilligence then please do not involve yourself in other people's discussions. Not only were you not invited, you are not informed. 3. I engage BillB in an academic discussion of the merits of relative values of source materials, and you choose to take it as a personal affront. My curiosity will have to remain insatiated, for while I am curious how many years of military service qualify a person to discuss print and electronic media, I dread to read the response. 4. Furthermore, from your previous posts you have exposed your character enough for me to know that I want nothing to do with you. 5. Please refrain from addressing me in the future, one's patience does have limits.131673[/snapback] 1. Adam did not engage in personal attacks without provocation first. So, the gloves are off. 2. I can involve myself in any discussion without being invited. 3. I’ve not addressed you at all, nor have I addressed your discussion with BillB. 4. My character is impeccable and I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not you have anything to do with me. 5. Consider yourself “addressed.” Now – whatcha gonna do ‘bout that?
Rocky Davis Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 The Pentagon claims so many things as suicide attacks that can be proven were not that they can not be trusted when it comes to these claims. Stellar131855[/snapback] I first heard "mortar attack." That lasted for about a day until the news reported it was a suicide bomber. I had it verified through a friend that eats in the same Mess Hall. Several days later, the info comes out that the bomber is the son of some Saudi Royalty. Check it out in Army Times, 3 JAN 05 issue, page 10 by a reporter on the scene (Army Times is a private venture and is independent of the military).
UN-Interested Observer Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 1. Adam did not engage in personal attacks without provocation first. So, the gloves are off. 2. I can involve myself in any discussion without being invited. 3. I’ve not addressed you at all, nor have I addressed your discussion with BillB. 4. My character is impeccable and I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not you have anything to do with me. 5. Consider yourself “addressed.” Now – whatcha gonna do ‘bout that? 131858[/snapback] You insist on provoking me, so I become vocal. Adam did in fact engage in personal attacks without provocaion first, so you can put your gloves back on. This alone proves you are a liar, and should be enough to end this. Furthermore, if you insist on writing to me you will not use foul language, threats, challenges, or other insidious provocations. This is not negotiable.
Rocky Davis Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 You insist on provoking me, so I become vocal. Adam did in fact engage in personal attacks without provocaion first, so you can put your gloves back on. This alone proves you are a liar, and should be enough to end this. Furthermore, if you insist on writing to me you will not use foul language, threats, challenges, or other insidious provocations. This is not negotiable.131882[/snapback] Adam saw provocation - pretty much everybody but YOU did. That's enough for me. Me? A liar? Prove it. Let's negotiate . . . what can I say, and what cannot I not say? I mean . . . (sorry, I'm almost pissing in my pants from laughing so hard) . . . for instance, may I say f**k to you? How about sh*t? . . . not "permissible?" well, GD . . . what can I say and stay on your good side?
Rocky Davis Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Mr. "UN" - this will be my last post of the night (I'm cooking dinner, then it's off to bed). I sincerely apologize for using profanity, but it's in my nature. Only Adam Machell is qualified to judge as to whether Adam Machell was provoked into a somewhat hostile post - not you (or anybody else). That he did, and that I've known him for years, and that I've read the thread shows me he was provoked (as were a number of us regulars - especially those of us with many years of military experience). If you don't like it, lodge a complaint to the Staff - they will be final judge. This place does observe rules, however, invoking the Marques de Queensbury's rules around here doesn't accomplish sh*t (oops - must not use profanity with you, you might start bawling!). Good night!
Guest AdamMachell Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Sir, you speak of audacity. how sardonic. I wish to report you for reprimand for breaking forum rules, but I will allow you time to retract your offensive statements. We all make mistakes, please try and avoid another. BTW I didn't know the KKK had a website, I don't think you need worry about me 'pissing in your sandbox' there.131654[/snapback] Dude, or maybe Dudette, you are certainly a hoot. Please describe for me the ROE I have violated? I made no mistake short of showing you more civility than you deserve. BiilB is one of our most respected members. You spoke to him as if he were a child. I took great offense at that. I took something ludicrous that you posted and turned it back on you. I note that you have since backed down from your foolish claims. As with the "discussion" you are having with my good friend Rocky, do not pretend that your words carry any weight within these fora. You may fancy yourself as something important, around here you're just another FNG who probably won't last. It should be interesting to see who goes first, you or Stellar.
Rocky Davis Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Stellar, UN et al: What better place (a thread about US casualties) to post this link: http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/ It is amended daily. Of course, if you are somebody that thinks these are all lies, don't bother checking it out. Just keep in mind that the families of these fallen heroes monitor this web site - and they have no reason to doubt the reported facts surrounding each of the dead or wounded. A written Witness Statement is required to be submitted from any eyewitness to a casualty, whether or not the casualty was sustained under combat conditions (such as a vehicle accident). Those Witness Statements are monitored by he Chain of Command for many reasons, but here are several: 1. The witness account of injury/death informs the next of kin of the exact circumstances surrounding the casualty and, because of that, may prevent frivolous lawsuits by private individuals against the government for wrongful death/injury. 2. The witness account of injury/death informs the next of kin of the exact circumstances surrounding the casualty and, because of that, provides necessary closure for the loved ones of the casualty. 3. The witness account of injury acts as proof of an on-the-job injury, thereby legally qualifying the individual for lifetime medical care for the injury at the cost of the government. 4. The witness account of injury/death informs the Chain of Command of dangerous casualty-producing trends developing with tactics or equipment, thereby making them alter their Risk Assessment of certain operations and also initiating product improvement programs to make faulty, casualty-producing equipment safer to operate. 5. The witness account of injury/death informs the Chain of Command of the exact circumstances surrounding the incident, thereby providing documentation for proposed military awards and/or decorations relating to the event. There are many other things in which the Witness Statements play an integral role.
Guest AdamMachell Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Damn Rocky, you know the consporacy theory guys don't want to be bothered with meddlesome facts.
Rubberneck Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 So wealthy people don't lie and apoligize for the actions of their sons, yet poor people don't? What kind of skewed thinking is this? Why would you blow himself up against a wall? This jackass wasn't a professional, he was a son of the Saudi royal family/ruling class. Let's eliminate the "maybe" and consider this thread closed. Their a wealthy family and one would think he would apologise if he believed his son had done it..... Why would be exploded himself against the wall instead of in the middle of the tent? I very well might be wrong and i hope your going to bear with me while im still asking questions. Anyways... Stellar131929[/snapback]
BillB Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Stellar, please spare us the tortured martyr act, it won't wash. You are not being "shouted down". You are being taken to task for your attitude and more importantly, the glaring flaws in your reasoning, arguments and conclusions. You do not appear to be used to having your pronouncements and opinions challenged, but you had better get used to it as that's the way things are done around here. Or you could bugger off back to these other forums that keep you so busy. Your call, I don't think anyone here gives a toss one way or the other. A piece of advice for you. When considering things like suicide bombers or the mindset of folk in Iraq, try stepping out of of your own cultural preconceptions and mores. Not everyone on the planet subscribes to them by a very long way, and you are getting a false perspective by trying to filter everything through them. all the best BillB
Guest AdamMachell Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Actually the wall was very smart. You'd have to know a little about blast analysis to understand.
Rubberneck Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Here's a real clue - you are guessing. You've guessed this entire thread and been proven wrong over and over again. Uh, as I've stated before, suicide bombers more often than not are not professionals. They go and do their thing. Bread buttered on both sides? I think you've been huffing too much paint. I've had enough of this. I think your stay on TankNet will be short. Well i was just thinking that since his family was so rich and "respected" ( guessing) they might want to formally apologise for the actions of their son. Well he was smart enough to become a medical student so im thinking he might be smart enough to find the middle of the mess tent before ending his life. When your going to kill people to get to heaven and virgins( as they would have as believe on TV) im thinking im going to kill as many as i can and mabye i get more virgins. Just my silly reasoning and mabye this guy was happy just getting to heaven without added benifit. Who knows what goes trough such a twisted stupid mind who cant even reason enough to kill to maxim effect. Im surprised he managed to infiltrate a armed camp with bulky explosives with such limited mental abilty! You want your bread buttered on more than two sides it seems. Till later then... Stellar132376[/snapback]
Mk 1 Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Well he was smart enough to become a medical student so im thinking he might be smart enough to find the middle of the mess tent before ending his life. When your going to kill people to get to heaven and virgins ... im thinking im going to kill as many as i can.... Just my silly reasoning and mabye this guy was happy just getting to heaven without added benifit. Who knows what goes trough such a twisted stupid mind who cant even reason enough to kill to maxim effect. Im surprised he managed to infiltrate a armed camp with bulky explosives with such limited mental abilty! 132376[/snapback] I think it is a mistake to assume that a suicide bomber is clear and level headed, rational, and making calculated decisions up to the moment of his/her own self-inflicted demise. Far more likely is that he/she is overdosing on adrenaline, so much so that he/she is in imminent risk of fainting or vomitting, stuck on the dilema of a desperate fear of either 1) pulling the cord, or 2) being discovered BEFORE pulling the cord. Or, conversely, the individual might be in a state of almost a self-induced trance, feeling as if the world is no longer real and seeing his/her own actions from a more-or-less detatched third-party perspective, effectively shutting out as much of the sensory input and common concious thinking as possible. Both of these are among the mind's most common defensive mechanisms to an unfamiliar environment frought with life-threadening danger, and both are widely reported as states of mind among those who have faced the perception of very likely death (and lived to tell about it). To expect that a young, first-time suicide bomber (are there many seasoned, experienced suicide bombers?) is level-headed and coolly calculating his or her actions seems rather unlikely to me. Just consider the screaming that was recorded on the 9/11 Pentagon jet, or the actions of the failed shoe-bomber on the trans-atlantic flight, or the tendancy of Palestinian suicide-bombers to blow themselves up in the doors of busses rather than in the middle of the aisles, or to blow themselves up with one guard at some checkpoint when the second question is asked of them, rather than among many soldiers inside some interrogation room. They are not in the mood to do calculus homework during their final moments in this world. They do not expect to receive grade cards afterwards, or constructive criticism to improve their performance "for the next time". -Mark 1
Ssnake Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Mk 1, a good summary of what's known about the mindset of suicide bombers - it fits what one is hearing from palestinian teenagers who could be stopped before they pulled the cord, and got to be interrogated afterwards. I remember a multi-page feature in "Der Spiegel" one or two years ago when they were admitted to the Israeli prisons to perform five interviews with those intercepted bombers. May I also point to another source, "Ripples of Battle" by Victor D. Hanson, where he discusses the suicide attacks of the battle for Okinawa in WW2 where this tactic was being used by the Japanese military establishment to offset a technological gap. Quite insightful stuff. Finally: Stellar, have you ever heard of Occam's razor?Your style of discussion does indeed qualify as a case of trolling, growing in severity the longer you cling to your theories that simply don't make any sense at all to me. I think you are grossly overestimating the strength of a motive to lie about this incident, you are grossly overestimating the ability of a large organization to suppress and twist information, and underestimating the very same power of grapevine transmissions to reveal the truth to the families of the victims that you are using to back up your claims. Two people can share a secret.With three people, there's at least one traitor. Your allegations about a cover-up fulfil the criteria of paranoia. OK, even paranoid people can have enemies - the point is, you change the direction of argumentation and the focus of the discussion whenever one of your arguments is falsified, or there's an explanation that is simple and fits the official version. I can but say that whenever a journalist reports anything about which I know a lot of detail, it makes me cringe to see the amount of nonsense in it. Sometimes I even cringe about obvious nonsense in reports about which subject matter I don't know enough to call myself as "experienced", let alone "expert". Therefore, a reporter's work is notoriously inaccurate and to be taken with a great deal of caution. Internet sources are usually even worse as 99.9% is just hearsay, and quotes of hearsay, and the trouble is that hearsay reproduces so much faster than pages like www.Snopes.com can falsify. In an open society like the US, the amount of cover-up that would be necessary over a lesser issue like this, would raise so much attention that it would almost inevitably result in a big scandal. That's a practical application of Occam's logic. Unless you bring up hard evidence, you can "reason" all day with your skewed logic, you're not going to convince anyone here and only get yourself banned from TankNet. If that's what you want, you just need to send the moderators an email. Not even Kant would follow you since he knew very well that even the sharpest mind needs a secure foothold in reality to come to valid results.And only, if reality actually budges to the laws of reason and logic, which it not always does - otherwise there would be world peace already (Kant wrote about that as well).
Victor Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 (edited) Arguing over one incident as to whether it was bomb type A or bomb type B isn't particularly effective for either side of that argument. And finally getting back on topic (which was).I were told that the US military casualties in Iraq are being reported in ways that make them look smaller, namely - soldiers, who serve in the US army with the hope of getting citizenship aren't counted, and also soldiers who die later of their wounds in hospitals aren't counted too. Anybody care explain this? and also soldiers who die later of their wounds in hospitals aren't counted too.I don't know about this, it would be difficult to "deny" these deaths. It's too easy for the DoD to be found out on this score.soldiers, who serve in the US army with the hope of getting citizenship aren't counted,I have concerns here that these soldiers are not being honoured. Of all the US forces deaths (approximately 1352 as of the other day, but there appears to be no official total), only one is attributed to a non-US citizen. Now either this category makes up a tiny, tiny percentage of soldiers or they are very good at not being killed. Separately, there is a dearth of information on Iraqi and other losses in a number of categories:Iraqi expatriates (trained in Poland and Hungary) who fought side by side with the Americans in the invasion. Were these not part of the coalition? Iraqi Civil Defence Corp Iraqi National Guard Iraqi Police, estimated at 1329 (preliminary estimate with limted details) Contractors (security & otherwise), at least 202Now, the DoD is obsessed with metrics and this is one area where there is a practical void. While it's harsh (but we are all grown up aren't we) to say they are lying, they aren't telling the truth either, simply because they aren't saying anything about total numbers in public.American StatesAlabama 22Alaska 1Arizona 34Arkansas 21California 157Colorado 18Connecticut 12Delaware 6Dist. of Columbia 3Florida 60Georgia 30Hawaii 3Idaho 8Illinois 57Indiana 32Iowa 15Kansas 15Kentucky 17Louisiana 27Maine 8Maryland 20Massachusetts 24Michigan 38Minnesota 12Mississippi 15Missouri 18Montana 5Nebraska 17Nevada 6New Hampshire 6New Jersey 29New Mexico 8New York 65North Carolina 31North Dakota 9Ohio 44Oklahoma 24Oregon 24Pennsylvania 66Rhode Island 6South Carolina 24South Dakota 7Tennessee 30Texas 121Utah 6Vermont 10Virginia 40Washington 32West Virginia 10Wisconsin 32Wyoming 5 American Internal and External TerritoriesAmerican Samoa 3Fed. Sts. of Micronesia 1Guam 1Marianas Protectorate 1Puerto Rico 13Virgin Islands 2 Non-AmericanGuatemala 1 Total American Military Deaths (including 3 civilians) 1352 Other Militaries* Other - UK: 76* Other - Polish: 16 * Other - Danish: 1 * Other - Spanish: 11 * Other - Italian: 19 * Other - Ukrainian: 17 * Other - Bulgarian: 7 * Other - Thai: 2 * Other - Estonian: 2 * Other - Salvadoran: 1 * Other - Netherlands 2 * Other - Slovaks: 3 * Other - Latvian: 1 * Other - Hungarian: 1 * Other - Kazakh: 1 http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ Edited January 12, 2005 by Victor
UN-Interested Observer Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Very interesting. Thank-you for bringing some facts to this auspicious debate.
Guest AdamMachell Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Victor, the US Department of Defense only reports US deaths. There is an official total, it only comes out through official DOD channels, I think quarterly.
Victor Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Victor, the US Department of Defense only reports US deaths.Not quite, they seem to only be reporting deaths of American citizens within the US military. “We don’t do body counts” - General Tommy Franks, US Central Command “Change the channel” - Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.
DKTanker Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Not quite, they seem to only be reporting deaths of American citizens within the US military. 133049[/snapback] Your own data speaks differently, the death of a Guatemalan US service member. If your assertion is correct, then explain the exception. I don't know about now, but just 10 short years ago non-citizens were few and far between in the US Army. Moreover, I'm not sure but that non-citizens that had become permanent residents prior to enlistment aren't then carried as from one of the states or territories. How about this, before asserting some machevillian deception by the US DoD, do some research....how many non-citizens are currently enlisted, from where, how many are/were permanent residents. I'm sure you get the idea. Ah, but have done some research and it contradicts your assertion. Do get back to us when you have evidence to substantiate your allegations. Bye now.
Ox Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Stella, as a matter of interest do you think that it is only the US gov that is falsifying the casualty figures or do other members of the coalition do it as well? If so what are their motives or why are they not doing it and the only the US is?
JOE BRENNAN Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 (edited) ?We don?t do body counts? - General Tommy Franks, US Central Command 133049[/snapback]You seem to contradict yourself there. Before you criticized DoD "not telling the truth" for not providing a continuous total of Coalition deaths (including anti-insurgency Iraqi's), now you refer to the fact, and you are correct in this statement, that DoD has been very reticent to emphasize estimates of insurgent deaths. Anyway although some such estimates have appeared in press not emphasizing it as metric, "kill ratio's", etc. In this context I don't see the "untruthfulness" of the DoD releasing mainly statistics on its own personnel casualties only. As for the conclusion you jumped to about "not telling the truth" about US citizen v. non-citizen military deaths, it's a requirement that non-citizen enlistees be US permanent residents ("green card" holders), thus would presumably usually be included in their state of residence and perhaps even if exceptions to that rule which I suppose might occur. The Guatemalan might be Marine Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez who was the first non-citizen to die and was awarded posthumous citizenship, as I believe such men generally have been. He was usually mentioned as native of that country in press reports. But Googling around for a minute or two I found several references to non-citizen servicemen killed referred to in press reports by their state, for example newspaper articel: "5 of the first 10 Californians killed were not US citizens" OK so possibility of listing the non-citizens by state of residence mightn't have occurred to you, but I'd second DKT would hope you'd research it in more detail and report if you made a mistake, or truly inform us (I pull up TN to be informed), if you're right. Either way admit you're wrong or show proof, you'd be building credibility from the natural and fair starting level of a 2 post poster, around zero, not digging a hole Joe Edited January 12, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN
Recommended Posts