A-10 Gun Run

[Lethaface]

Maybe Fox news has done enough brainwashing on some of you guys achieving you believe USA is 'THE SAINT' and its counterparts 'THE DEMONS'.

However for me, here in our tiny little countrie in Europe, there is no such thing as 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. Media has a lot of effect on people. Be it through Fox news or Imams, the effects are comparable. I can go on for hours and hours, but who was doing business with Osama's family at 9-11?

Why is the extremis regime in Saudi Arabia a friend of USA while the extremist regime in Iran is an enemy? In my opinion: $$$$$$$$$$$

There were times, when Osama faught against a common enemy of USA, that the CIA trained Bin Laden in who he is now.

so Lee, why Osama was a 'great guy' before so that he earned the right to be trained and supplied by the CIA? Dont get me wrong; killing innocents is never a good thing in my opinion.

However, the way as you portrait this conflict is, in my opinion, very far from reality. Reality is much more complex as 'Good guys' and 'Bad guys'. In my opinion you are biased and perhaps sometimes forget to think for yourself.

Do you really take everything the news gives you for fact???

However, i must stop myself. This is a forum about a game (which I enjoy), not about politics.

nice day.

[Lee]

Here's another excellent video of Blackhawk gunships laying down some crushing fire on terrorists in Iraq. These type of Blackhawks kick all kinds of butt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncjn96dON3I&feature=related

[Other Means]

Is the A-10 still being retired?

[jtcm]

I'm with KHuNT and Lethaface. No good to say "turrists", these guys could be Sunni fighters, Shiite militias, or foreign jihadis AKA Al Quaida in Iraq/ Islamic emirate in Iraq (tiny proportion of insurgency in Iraq). They fight US forces for a variety of reasons and according to a variety of local dynamics.

[Lethaface]

Those minigun equipped blackhawks are mean machines, thats for sure

However I tend to believe this was just a show of force, no enemy's in the crosshair. Still, those miniguns even scare you away from a distance

Not sure about it, but I think Apache's (longbows) are better in providing (night) cas. They have plenty of visual & nav systems which gives them ability to fire of from far away. Those miniguns might look impressive, i'm pretty sure a pilot would appreciate a longbow better.

Too bad we dont have the possibility ingame to cut these choppers down

[KHuNT]

Originally posted by Lee:

KHuNT: Yeah, and according to some people Osama bin Laden is a great guy. So what, we're supposed to take idiots like that seriously?? There are always those who will support evil, or excuse it in some way.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

I'm sure the British cast the Americans as terrorists during the Revolutionary War.

Evil, that's a broad term, perhaps some could apply it to Osama, others to Saddam and Bush and Dick Cheney.

Then we have all the brave souls, both red and blue, who go and die for people that both sides label evil men.

How do we label them??????

Heroes? Fools? Both?

[Lethaface]

How do we label them??????

Heroes? Fools? Both?

Lets call 'em 'Humans'; they tend to act like foolish heroes

[the Fighting Seabee]

Khunt, don't live up to your name man.

Terrorists try to scare the crap out of (terrorize) and kill innocents to get their way. Insurgents fight foreign militaries.

"Human" is a species, yes. Terrorists also fall within the limits of the human species. But the word "human" also signifies a set of values that we hold to be part of what separates us from animals. Some of these values, such as reverance for life (especially human life), honor, and reason (there are many more). Therefor, if a group of "humans" does not live up to these principles, they could be considered inhuman. I argue that terrorists lack many human principles. I, for one, will never bow to anyone who uses terror. I would fight to the bitter end in order to be "free" of terror. Terrorists fight to FORCE everyone to do what they want. Therefor, a terrorist is NEVER a freedom fighter. Don't get that confused again.

Back to the topic at hand, here is some more examples of what I would love to see and hear in the game...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4e6b92681

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b7bc04ffc

This one is especially interesting, showing the difference in sound between an f-16 and an a-10.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fe2_1208203797

[Darius359au]

I love the sound difference between the 20mm vulcan and the 30mm Avenger - the Vulcan sounds light and tinny but the Avengers just plain scary

[KHuNT]

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

Terrorists try to scare the crap out of (terrorize) and kill innocents to get their way. Insurgents fight foreign militaries.

"Human" is a species, yes. Terrorists also fall within the limits of the human species. But the word "human" also signifies a set of values that we hold to be part of what separates us from animals. Some of these values, such as reverance for life (especially human life), honor, and reason (there are many more). Therefor, if a group of "humans" does not live up to these principles, they could be considered inhuman. I argue that terrorists lack many human principles. I, for one, will never bow to anyone who uses terror. I would fight to the bitter end in order to be "free" of terror. Terrorists fight to FORCE everyone to do what they want. Therefor, a terrorist is NEVER a freedom fighter. Don't get that confused again.

Oh I assure you I'm not confused.

YOU call them 'terrorists', they may call themselves the right arm of God.

THAT'S THE POINT!!!

YOUR VIEW IS *NOT* THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT THINKS IT HAS THE MONOPOLY ON WHATS RIGHT.

Either they're ALL right or none of them.

OMFG..... you trying to tell me the US forces aren't trying to force everyone to do what America wants....

FFS that's ridiculous, truly.

Go on, tell me, George Bush just wanted to relieve Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam and get him back for trying to kill his daddy.

Everything you just said gets said in 'terrorist' training camps, with 'terrorist' replaced by 'America' and '$'.

They're not like us, they're animals.

What a completely 'irreverent' 'un-honorable' and 'un-reasonable' thing to say.

Wanna be 'free' of terror, look first in your own backyard.

" In fact, back in 1776, all fifty-six leaders of the American Revolution were branded as terrorists and Britain wanted them ‘dead or alive.’ Their crime: they signed the American Declaration of Independence."

A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Tony Blair, "if the United States can claim that the non-uniformed fighters in Afghanistan are illegal combatants, then Great Britain can claim that the non-uniformed colonial Minutemen fighting the British troops were also illegal combatants."

[ May 22, 2008, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: KHuNT ]

[Darius359au]

And to get back to the point of the thread ,A10=cool

[Field Marshal Blücher]

In my opinion, "terrorists" is not a matter of opinion. A terrorist is anyone who uses fear for political purposes.

Have Americans acted in a "terrorist" manner? I would say yes (WWII firebombings on German and Japanese cities being an example, but I don't want to get into that here ). However, I would also say that many of the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq are also terrorists. Being a guerrilla does not make one a terrorist, however. You need that element of killing, wounding, or making hostages of civilians to be a terrorist.

Therefore, although some American Revolutionary War guerrillas were terrorists, the majority were not. However, I would say that a majority of Iraqi insurgents are terrorists, seeing as they frequently target civilians and civilian property that has absolutely zero to do with the war effort.

Bush, despite whatever political opinions we may have, I do not think is a terrorist. He didn't target civilians in any way, all he wanted was a regime change, which he effected in a traditional military manner. So again, while I think our political leaders made a serious mistake, I would say that our soldiers at least are morally superior to their opponents.

None of this is to say that civilians do not die unless there are terrorists around. It is not an act of terrorism to kill civilians by collateral damage or because a soldier thought that a civilian house was occupied by enemies.

To sum up: in my opinion (which is just that, an opinion) being a terrorist is not merely a label. Instead, it can be empirically proven that the person is or is not a terrorist by virtue of whether they deliberately target civilians.

-FMB

[ May 22, 2008, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Field Marshal Blücher ]

[KHuNT]

Blucher:

Do you really think those targets have nothing to do with their 'war effort'.

I doubt very much that there's one perspective on what that effort is.

Define their purpose?

Perhaps that war now is in part sectarian, genocidal even.

Are a majority in Iraq terrorists?

I think there is quite a strong disparity between, Insurgents (could also be labeled Patriots), Jihadists and sectarian combatants.

I think a few people in power in the US at the moment are guilty of an incalculable quantity "politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatants".

I'm really interested in unpacking some of this stuff. But, I think I'll start a fresh thread and see if anyone's interested and stop hijacking this one.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Yeah, we should really leave this thread. Sorry guys!

-FMB

[Lee]

Here's some more cool air strike videos. In the first a Cobra hits a building terrorists are hiding in, apparently with a Hellfire or TOW missile. No doubt there was no need for follow up shots.

The second is an Apache taking out terrorists they caught stashing weapons (one looks like an RPG) in a field for later attacks on us. That 30mm cannon really kicks butt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_WEohK3bo

[c3k]

When you deliberately decapitate a hostage on video for the sole purpose of distributing the video to glorify yourself you are a terrorist, not a freedom fighter.

The moral relavency espoused by some is, at best, spinelessness. I expect that from some, based on my broad travels. At worst, it is a slimy attempt to further the aims of the terrorists.

I respect many of my country's adversaries, past and present. I respect the ability of terrorists to carry out attacks due to their ability to train/inculcate some to die for their cause. I have NO respect for a group that tortures, maims, and kills hostages; on video.

Do not try to use the hackneyed phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Now, no doubt those of you who believe in moral relavency (or situational specific ethics) will use isolated examples of Western (or U.S. specific) atrocities. You will ignore the outcry against them; the prosecution of them; the rareness of their occurrence.

Start your own thread.

Ken

[Lethaface]

I have NO respect for a group that tortures, maims, and kills hostage

I fully agree. By the way, this includes both sides in Iraq. The difference is that one does it openly and the other sneakily.

That said, I think you have made a cowardly post by first telling us your opinion, to end with 'start your own thread'. If you dont want a discussion, then dont react. This post asks for a reaction but at the same time it says 'go somewhere else'. I'm looking for the right word here; hypocrite comes close.

Regarding usage of the word 'terrorist' as in someone that commits acts of 'terrorism' (and not: Terror), it might simply mean something different for you then someone else:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

Your person serves as a perfect example as how shallow is the vision of the Global situation expressed in acts by the USA and vocally expressed by it's President: "You're eiter with us, or against us".

In other words, you create your own reality and everyone that sees things different can drop dead.

Perhaps I have understand your post wrong. This is just my opinion about the USA's global politics and not about all citizens of the USA.

Ok, have fun with your thread. It was about gun runs by the way, might you have forgotten.

[Splinty]

After 3 tours in Iraq, I have yet to personally have seen or heard about Coalition Forces torture or deliberately try to harm anyone who wasn't trying to kill them. THAT's the difference between us and the terrorists/insurgents. If you can't figure that out Lethaface, KHunt etc., maybe you need to rethink your ethics.

[Lethaface]

Splinty, I'm not saying every Coalition soldier does 'it' or that it's a standard policy. I'm also not talking about 'accidents', offcourse these do happen.

However, torturing by agencies (cia) does happen on captured insurgents (egypt, east europe, guantanamo). There will also be innocent people among them as this cannot be avoided. Blackwater havin some incidents as well.

By the way, the fact you didn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all. I hope I don't have to explain that.

Now, I don't intent to upset anyone and I am by no means comparing USA with Al-Qaida.

However, the reasons why USA soldiers are in Iraq are a bit dubious to me. So does the whole (current) government in USA. Do you know who owns the FED (bank)? It's no state property for sure. Does the 'Carlyle' group rings any bells? The 'Iron triangle' in the USA (Defense, Industry, Government) is one big family. They monetize on the policy's set by themselves. Being in Iraq is not only (or not at all?) to help the poor Iraqi's install a democracy. Offcourse Saddam was a nasty dictator, but I doubt if it's any better for the Iraqi's now. Did the Iraqi's ask for a regime change? What gives america the right to 'bring democracy' to other countries? Even though when I think democracy is the 'best' (or better, least bad) of the stateforms we know, it doesn't mean we can help other people by bringing Democracy to them by a military regime change conducted by a foreign nation. This does sound like bringing the 'civilisation' that many European countries (like mine, The Netherlands) did during the colonial age. On one hand america is bringing 'civilisation' to other countries. On the other hand health insurance isn't even payable by most Middle income americans and many big cities have large problems with minorities. Is that the example they want to give the rest of the world, of 'Democracy'? Now I can go on with much more problems, but I think i made my point already.

This double morale is the thing that frustrates me, when people (on this forum and elsewhere) keep talking about the US being Angels bringing peace and civilisation among 'the terrorist barbarians'.

To be clear:

I'm against any form of violence when not 100% necessary and especially against innocent people. I dismiss kidnapping and cutting of heads and disrespecting the dead, etc.

However I accept that my view on the world is different then many people in, for example, the middle east. They're not quite happy about Israel's politics in Gaza. They see Israel allways helped by USA. They see 50 dead Palestinians for 1 dead Israeli. They are scared Western culture destroying their own traditions, etc etc etc. While maybe not always rational from my view, who am I to say that "WE" are right and "THEY" are wrong.

That kind of arrogancy annoys me and makes me angry about the lives lost.

If you talk about USA soldiers fighting insurgents in Iraq please use the appropriate words to indicate what you want to say. A little biased opinion is OK offcourse, we're all biased. But if i'm given the impression anyone is convinced USA is doing 'such a good job' in Iraq and in the world and spits gutter at other opinions, he'll hear it. And i'll happily start a discussion about it (in an apart thread). A discussion using arguments that hold value, not claiming facts because of what 'someone saw'.

As a last notice; I wish all USA (/other) soldiers a safe trip home and hope the current violent extremists find their peace and live in happines.

[Lee]

Splinty: Thanks for helping to kick some terrorist butt over there in Iraq.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by Lee:

Splinty: Thanks for helping to kick some terrorist butt over there in Iraq.

That's what we're for.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Let's all take it easy, okay?

[M1A1TC]

This thread is getting way off course.

[JonS]

Originally posted by c3k:

... no doubt those of you who believe in moral relavency (or situational specific ethics) will ...

I take it you don't 'believe in situational specific ethics' then? I'd be interested in hearing how you find that works in practice.

Let's start with an easy one: is it ethical to remove a person's leg?

[ May 27, 2008, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[M1A1TC]

How about you start a new thread on ethical dilemmas in the general discussion and talk about it there?