Adjust fire, over!

[athkatla]

Originally posted by civdiv:

Wow, someone turned this into a very detailed and time intensive hoppy. I never would have thought you could do this at this scale;

http://www.ausbg.org/index.html

Anything posted on these forums always brings out our learned grogs, they never cease to amaze me at their knowledge of WWII history and weapons/units.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Severin:

I hate to put it this way, but if 1 crazy flamer from the ME is the worst thing this board suffers, we will have gotten off light. I mean, a US invasion of Syria is a pretty controversial basis for a game. The fact that a native of Syria would take issue shouldn't be particularly surprising. If this game is as popular as we are all hoping I fear we may be getting fairly frequent visits from at least:

1) Crazies from the ME like our friend

2) Crazies from the US who wanna cap some (insert slur of choice here)

3) People in the US that don't like seeing US soldiers die in a setting very similar to Iraq

4) People in the US and abroad that for some odd reason disagree with the recent foreign policy of the US.

First I'd like to say that my intention in posting about the New Jersey shelling the Syrian command post was not to glorify in the Syrian deaths but to make note that the U.S. and Syria had already once engaged in a conflict not so long ago but already overlooked by many. Isn't there a forum rule against celebrating deaths of others? If so then Lee's post does break that rule.

Second I suspect Severins post may come across in a way he did not intend. For instance #3. Is there any one besides Lone Syrian who does like seeing US soldiers die in any setting? And #4 the forum is already full of those including Steve.

Thanks.

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by civdiv:

Wow, someone turned this into a very detailed and time intensive hoppy. I never would have thought you could do this at this scale;

http://www.ausbg.org/index.html

Thanks for that link, it makes me want to fly to Australia just to see them! Cool!

[Severin]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Severin:

I hate to put it this way, but if 1 crazy flamer from the ME is the worst thing this board suffers, we will have gotten off light. I mean, a US invasion of Syria is a pretty controversial basis for a game. The fact that a native of Syria would take issue shouldn't be particularly surprising. If this game is as popular as we are all hoping I fear we may be getting fairly frequent visits from at least:

1) Crazies from the ME like our friend

2) Crazies from the US who wanna cap some (insert slur of choice here)

3) People in the US that don't like seeing US soldiers die in a setting very similar to Iraq

4) People in the US and abroad that for some odd reason disagree with the recent foreign policy of the US.

First I'd like to say that my intention in posting about the New Jersey shelling the Syrian command post was not to glorify in the Syrian deaths but to make note that the U.S. and Syria had already once engaged in a conflict not so long ago but already overlooked by many. Isn't there a forum rule against celebrating deaths of others? If so then Lee's post does break that rule.

Second I suspect Severins post may come across in a way he did not intend. For instance #3. Is there any one besides Lone Syrian who does like seeing US soldiers die in any setting? And #4 the forum is already full of those including Steve.

Thanks. </font>

[Lee]

While I am tempted to not even reply to what lone syrian said, as his comments here and in other threads show what a demented freak he is, I would like to address the subject of my comments on the battleship barrage.

First off, I didn't say I wanted to see an extreme close-up video with all sorts of gore and such, but rather a more general view from a distance where you can see the Syrian soldiers running around as the barrage hits the target. The same as I enjoy seeing video from U.S. AC-130 Specter gunships blasting al qaeda terrorists as they leave a meeting in Afghanistan. While close-up shots of those dead terrorists would no doubt be unpleasant to look at (and I wouldn't want to see it), it's very gratifying to see evil men have just retribution brought on their heads.

Iran and Syria have done nothing but brought misery and death to the people of Lebanon through their support of hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and their attempts to control the people of Lebanon through the murder of their leaders that oppose Syrian domination of their country. And Iran and Syria backed the terrorists that killed our Marines in Beirut. So I have no sympathy for the Syrian military. And so I would certainly like to see what those big 16 inch shells raining down on them look like, they deserve it.

[Sergei]

That's sick and ill-informed. Like their leaders or not, Syrian conscripts have little say about that. And even if that was not the situation, enjoying the sight of people dying, good or bad, is perverted.

[Battlefront.com]

While LoneSyrian is certainly an out to lunch whacko, don't be so quick to cast stones Lee. The US has caused or supported far more misery and suffering around the globe than Syria could ever dream of causing. So by your logic LoneSyrian has every right to celebrate the deaths of the Marines in Lebanon.

Personally, despite the extremely mixed track record of US foreign policy (I'm being kind) I don't think our Marines in Beirut deserved to be truck bombed out of this world no more than I think our troops in Baghdad deserve to be scattered all over some desert wasteland. Therefore, I see no reason to rejoice in some conscripted Syrian soldier getting vaporized by a 16" volley. I also don't take pleasure from the death of some probable misguided, poverty stricken youth that was brainwashed by his elders into a weapon for their own political/economic benefit.

Having said that, just as it is true that the US has funded nun raping murderes in Central America and helped put and keep more nasty people in power than any other nation in modern history, it also must be kept in mind that the US does a heck of a lot of good all over the world. The same can not be said for Syria. Nor can it be said that Syria would restrain its power as much as the US has if it were given the same opportunities. So in absolute terms I don't see Americans having much in the way of moral superiority in that sense, though in relative terms they sure do. Therefore, the more absolute a comment is the more rubbish it is.

BTW, in case anybody hasn't figured it out yet... I feel very strongly that nationalism without proper context is a disaster in the making. There are reasons why most of the world hates the US right now, and blind nationalism is part of the reason. We reap what we sow, as the saying goes.

Steve

[Lee]

Well, I'm sure most German soldiers didn't have much to say about how the nazis ran things in WWII, but they still had to pay the price for the clear evil their country was ordering to be done.

As for our marines in Beirut, they were there to try and help, they certainly weren't there trying to oppress the Lebanese as Syria and Iran have been for many years. Iran and Syria have no legitimate beef with us (unless you consider our refusal to withhold help from Israel with their defense so the arabs and persians can wipe out Israel and kill all the jews there to be "legitimate"), any more than Osama Bin Laden does. Their "reasons" only exist in their twisted minds. That would be like saying Osama has just as much reason to celebrate the killing of americans as we do of his fellow terrorists. This is only possible to say if you try and put the U.S. on the same moral plane as the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11th. Which we clearly aren't.

And so their isn't any equivalent reason for them to want to kill our troops as their is for us to kill them. If they would just stay in their countries and leave Lebanon alone, that place would be an awful lot more peaceful right now. Many Lebanese detest Syria, Iran and hezbollah for that very reason.

As far as past U.S. government policies that might have supported groups in South America that did some bad things, I assume it was done because some of the leading opposing factions that threatened to take power in these countries were communists. And a communist government is about the most hideous type one can have, history has proven that to undeniably be the case. Plus, being communists, they would almost automatically be allied the communists in Russia, our arch enemies, who were working on that whole "enslave the whole world under communism" thing at the time. So we were hoping to prevent the spread of that.

Personally, if we know for a fact that a group is committing crimes against innocent people as a matter of policy (not just rogue elements in the group acting on their own), then I don't think we should ever help them. If that means the commies take over in that country, then so be it. If that communist government later on attacks us or our interests, then just go down there and wipe them out militarily. Same end result, but by doing it that way our hands are clean.

In any case, while the U.S. government has often been far from perfect in it's choices, I'll put the record of the U.S. for liberating people and helping people with generous charitable donations from our people up against the record of any other country in the history of the world.

Anyhow, about those cool battleships...

[Splinty]

Originally posted by Lee:

Well, I'm sure most German soldiers didn't have much to say about how the nazis ran things in WWII, but they still had to pay the price for the clear evil their country was ordering to be done.

As for our marines in Beirut, they were there to try and help, they certainly weren't there trying to oppress the Lebanese as Syria and Iran have been for many years. Iran and Syria have no legitimate beef with us (unless you consider our refusal to withhold help from Israel with their defense so the arabs and persians can wipe out Israel and kill all the jews there to be "legitimate"), any more than Osama Bin Laden does. Their "reasons" only exist in their twisted minds. That would be like saying Osama has just as much reason to celebrate the killing of americans as we do of his fellow terrorists. This is only possible to say if you try and put the U.S. on the same moral plane as the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11th. Which we clearly aren't.

And so their isn't any equivalent reason for them to want to kill our troops as their is for us to kill them. If they would just stay in their countries and leave Lebanon alone, that place would be an awful lot more peaceful right now. Many Lebanese detest Syria, Iran and hezbollah for that very reason.

As far as past U.S. government policies that might have supported groups in South America that did some bad things, I assume it was done because some of the leading opposing factions that threatened to take power in these countries were communists. And a communist government is about the most hideous type one can have, history has proven that to undeniably be the case. Plus, being communists, they would almost automatically be allied the communists in Russia, our arch enemies, who were working on that whole "enslave the whole world under communism" thing at the time. So we were hoping to prevent the spread of that.

Personally, if we know for a fact that a group is committing crimes against innocent people as a matter of policy (not just rogue elements in the group acting on their own), then I don't think we should ever help them. If that means the commies take over in that country, then so be it. If that communist government later on attacks us or our interests, then just go down there and wipe them out militarily. Same end result, but by doing it that way our hands are clean.

In any case, while the U.S. government has often been far from perfect in it's choices, I'll put the record of the U.S. for liberating people and helping people with generous charitable donations from our people up against the record of any other country in the history of the world.

Anyhow, about those cool battleships...

Hear Hear! It's about time, someone brought out the big picture!

[MikeyD]

"...supported groups in South America that did some bad things, I assume it was done because some of the leading opposing factions that threatened to take power in these countries were communists."

Yup, J. Edgar Hoover proved to everyone's satisfaction that anyone who's pro-labor rights, pro-privacy rights, pro-environment, and pro-social justice was ipso-facto a yellow-bellied commie. Might as well have some fun attaching electrodes to their genitals because commie fellow-travelers ain't real citizens like you and me - heck, commies ain't even human beings! We'd simply be doing God's work locking up all those degerate fellow-travelers and their famlies.

[ April 11, 2007, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[YankeeDog]

Ya, I was going to say:

Anyone who thinks that the United States has used assassination, financial support of insurgent groups, direct political assasination and other clandestine means to meddle in the foreign affairs of Central and South American companies *only* in opposition to communist governments or political movements either (a) is incredibly naive, or ( has an unbelievably broad definition of what a "communist" is.

I do, however, agree that, quite often, those criticizing US foreign policy, past and current, are rarely doing so from an unambiguously superior position.

"We're usually not as awful as the other guys" is hardly the lofty goal I would like to see our country strive for in our foreign policy, though. I think we can do better than that.

Cheers,

YD

[Moronic Max]

Yeah, since US meddling in Latin America goes back to 1898, I don't think we can bring out the commie canard to explain it.

Much as I'm reluctant to mention anything Kettler has, Smedley Butler's assertion that he was nothing more than a racketeer for American corporations has entirely too much truth to it:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

Now, I suppose the motivation for American intervention may have changed post-WWII, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Lee:

Well, I'm sure most German soldiers didn't have much to say about how the nazis ran things in WWII, but they still had to pay the price for the clear evil their country was ordering to be done.

Which doesn't mean that enjoying the deaths or panic of German or Japanese soldiers is any better.

"The Japanese got owned by the [name battleship here]. I would love to see video of that, as the Japanese run around screaming while huge shells rain on their heads, blowing the command post and everything else around them to bits. haha "

You see, this is the problem: you seem to think that because you are on the side of the good guys and thus morally superior, it gives the right to enjoy the death and panic of human beings. You don't get it across that laughing at something like that is immoral and undignified. Exactly the kind of thing that the "Internet Jihadists" do while watching videos of GI Joe's being sniped. If you have any respect for your own service men, you don't sink to that level.

Originally posted by Lee:

And so their isn't any equivalent reason for them to want to kill our troops as their is for us to kill them.

Yeah, just like your troops had a good reason to kill Iraqi troops because Saddam "supported Al Qaida" and because he "had WMD"...

You're trying to run away from the fact that even if they were fighting for the Belsebub himself, each one of them still is someone's husband, boyfriend or son, and wishing to see a video of them suffering so you'd get a cheap laugh out of the loss of human life would still be sick. Like your namesake said: "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." Unfortunately it seems like his countrymen have grown very, very fond of it, and have no qualms at all.

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei,

You see, this is the problem: you seem to think that because you are on the side of the good guys and thus morally superior, it gives the right to enjoy the death and panic of human beings.

Exactly my point, which seems to have zipped right over Lee's head. By his own definition he should have no problem with LoneSyrian's comments. Personally, I have a problem with both.

Lee,

As far as past U.S. government policies that might have supported groups in South America that did some bad things, I assume it was done because some of the leading opposing factions that threatened to take power in these countries were communists.

One of the most naive statements I have seen on this forum in a LONG time. The history of US interference in Mexico, Latin America, and South America predates Communism. That was just the excuse de jour for more than a few jours.

Personally, if we know for a fact that a group is committing crimes against innocent people as a matter of policy (not just rogue elements in the group acting on their own), then I don't think we should ever help them.

Right, too bad the Reagan and Bush Admins didn't agree with that. Instead they thought that drug and money laundering, with some off the books training thrown in, were acceptable Constitutional work arounds to Congress telling them not to get involved with fascist murderers.

If one wants to argue realpolitik, fine... go right ahead, but when you do so take all your morals and indignation about what others do and chuck it into the trash. You can't believe in morality and be playing dirty hardball at the same time. Plus, most realpolitik thinkers would argue that it isn't in the long term interests of a nation state to continually fuel instability and hatred through useless, counter productive medling in other people's affairs.

For example, would any of our Aussies here like to explain to Lee the benefits the CIA brougt to their country's democratic freedoms? Most Americans haven't a clue what I am talking about, but I'm sure most Aussies do.

MikeyD, YankeeDog,

Of course, good points that are extremely hard to dodge. And let's not even get started on what is going on these days

Now... to get back to the original point. When some 14 year old picks up an RPG and aims it at our soldiers in the field, they should drop the kid immediately. Just because I am sad that that kid got brainwashed into throwing his life away for someone sitting safely away in another country (like Sadar is right now), that is in the "strategic" sense. At that "tactical" level, there is no choice and the only solution is kill him right then and there. No apologies, no tears shed. But also there should be no rejoicing. That was a Human life and as misguided as it was, he should have been able to live a life free enough where he could have decided for himself what to think.

(BTW, I have the same philosophy about criminals in Western countries, if y'all care. I sympthize with someone's sob story of how crappy their childhood was with their crackwhore mom and molesting dad, but it doesn't minimize or excuse whatever crimes they stand accused of. And my theories on punishment couldn't be practiced without a rewrite of several parts of the US Constitution).

Steve

[John Kettler]

Moronic Max,

If you think U.S. doings in South/Central America make disturbing reading, you'll "love" this statement for a U.N. Tribunal on the Rwanda Genocide. Same basic story; different continent!

http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/ugandanet@kym.net/1492530.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Gpig]

I don't believe much of anything in that report.

Gpig

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, that has the usual "bad smell" to it I associate with certain types of farms in the middle of high summer So it's off to the best method of seeing if the 'ol nose is still functioning: Google!

The reported author's name is legit, which is the usual for hoaxes. Lots of hits on the same letter, posted in full, which is also usual for hoaxes. No reference to it on anything even approaching a reputable source for news and information, whcih is also usual for hoaxes. No links to it from the organization from which the letter supposedly came from (UN), which is also usual for hoaxes. Searching on the name of the poster of the letter produced links to people attacking his motivations and credibility over other things he's spoken/written about (apparently he is some sort of Ugandian activist), which is another usual thing for hoaxes.

So... if it smells like a hoax, looks like a hoax, and researches like a hoax... until solid evidence comes in... it probably is a hoax.

(note... all the best hoaxes are mostly factually correct. It's the 10% that isn't which makes all the difference).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

(link I just posted eliminated due to not reading something carefully enough. It was the same article, just shortened. Linked to the same source too. But the rest of my post stands as a reminder of how the best hoax letters are constructed)

It would appear that John's link is yet another example of how anybody can take something real and then retype it to make it into anything they want. The real portions serve to do two things:

1. Add the air of credibility to the make-believe stuff to follow

2. Serve as a writing style to mimic. This is important because if you are pretending to be someone you need to SOUND like that someone. What better way to fake it than to use a real sample of that person's speech/writing?

And if not a hoax (i.e. the real Kintu indeed wrote this) that doesn't mean it is factually correct. For example, pretty much nothing out of Dick Cheney's mouth can be believed, right? So the words from a politican with an ethnic axe to grind shouldn't be taken at face value either. Ironically, we had an issue with Tutsi and Huti claims and counter claims here in Maine a few weeks ago when the "Hotel Ruwanda" guy, Paul Rusesabagina, came to speak at a local university. There was a bunch of activists outside saying it was all a lie and he made it up in order to cover up his own crimes of extorting money from people to keep them safe. Reminds me of the Historical Revisonist movement. Same smell to it.

John... I found all of this out in about 10 minutes of using Google. The only reason I suspect you didn't find this stuff is because you didn't think it was necessary to look. You really do need to get that nose of yours looked at

Steve

[ April 13, 2007, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[John Kettler]

Steve and Gpig,

I found that letter while researching the now Maj Gen Kahinda Otafire who used to be the Ugandan Minister of Lands before his recent fall from grace. Clearly, he's been replaced.

http://www.statehouse.go.ug/news.detail.php?newsId=873&category=Appointments

Given a long laundry list of things I KNOW my government has done historically, coupled with such "marvels" as the Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/depopulation.htm

government funding for Synthetic Biological Agents

"refractory to known immune processes" (see JPEG of HB15090, p. 129)

http://community-2.webtv.net/Larry762/fontcolor3300FF/page5.html

easier to read version here with much related info

http://onlinejournal.com/health/102605Mazza/102605mazza.html

I invite you to consider how splendidly that dovetails into the message of the Georgia Guidestones which call for a permanent planetary population of only 500 million. Yes, you read that correctly! Not even twice the present U.S. population.

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

Others and I maintain that the Guidestones constitute nothing less than an elite policy statement of a message put forward in Ehrlich's THE POPULATION BOMB, and apparently implemented through the Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy

(notably expressed through a series of wars explicitly targeting women of breeding age and children; see, for example, Contra attacks on hospitals and women), the apparent development and dissemination of advanced biowarfare agents, China's draconian one child policy, etc. etc.

I posted the link because it seemed pertinent to Moronic Max's argument. While the purported statement may not be right in all particulars, it really doesn't matter in that the net result of the Rwanda Genocide fully conformed to the various elite policy statements and apparent actions to implement a global depopulation policy. Can also point to the fact that statements have been made to the effect that the Africans have wasted their patrimony of vast natural resources and are in the way of their proper and full exploitation. IOW, Africa would be better without Africans cluttering it up! And where is AIDs going through the populace like a scythe through ripe wheat?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Dogface]

Given a long laundry list of things I KNOW my government has done historically, coupled with such "marvels" as the Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy

I hope you are not including things like "The Panama Deception" in that laundry list.

[Moronic Max]

I posted the link because it seemed pertinent to Moronic Max's argument

John, don't take this the wrong way, but your support is often the kiss of death.

[John Kettler]

Dogface,

I spent weeks in the library myself, sometimes with a colleague in tow, meticulously researching and photocopying the documentation of what the U.S. did before, during and after the Panama invasion. Sources included newspapers of record, periodicals of every stripe, scholarly journals/

academic works. Research was conducted not just in English sources but in a whole bunch of Spanish language ones as well, which my colleague read and spoke fluently. One of the more interesting discoveries were reports of the actions of a special Army? unit, dubbed the Hard Chargers, whose job it was to provoke one or more incidents so as to create justification for the already planned invasion. Said item was in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE. Another good one was that the U.S. government knowingly swore in drug money launderers into the new government after Noriega was overthrown, in an oath administered on a U.S. military base in Panama!

Moronic Max,

Why should I, when I know I'm "universally loved and admired" here?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Da_Marauder]

If some suspect Mr. Kettler’s sources and assertions pertinent to either Africa or South/Cental America are incredulous and mere hoaxes, they need not go that far back, a present-day thorough look at Somalia will vindicate John Kettler’s notes.

The not so covert US support of Ethiopia to undertake methodical ethnic and religious purification in Somalia is in the papers and on TV screens today. Under the guise of combating Islamic fundamentalism, the grand design to vacate Somalia of its national and Islamic identity is in full swing with the blessing of the good ol US of A.

What is sought at the behest of the Americans is the systematic exodus of Somali civilians from key urban sectors while the Ethiopians conduct genocidal operations against so-called Islamic militants. Not only will this facilitate the massacre of the remaining dead enders, but it will ensure the decimation of the migrating and famished Somali civilian populace on its way to Eritrea .

Signs of this grand scheme are coming into focus as we speak, for example, the UN has reneged on a previous assurance to demarcate the disputed Ethiopian-Eritrean frontier. Food aid shipments are being derailed, blocked and denied to Somali refugees on the move and in makeshift camps; a neo Final Solution via attrition if you will.

North Korea, branded by the US as the Hefe Grande of the axis of evil is suddenly given carte blanche to arm the Ethiopians, whilst its attempts to arm Yemen, Sudan, Iran and Syria are systematically surveilled, sabotaged and condemned.

There’s yet another sign, take Paul Wolfowitz of the World Bank, his idea of helping the African continent is to divert $200000 from the Somalis and allocate it as a salary to his North African, Tunisian girlfriend Shaha Ali Riza while on a junket, near fictitious job at the State Department.

Call it revenge of the monkey son, water under the bridge, or Black Hawk Down Post Post Post Traumatic Syndrome, The Payback. Take your pick.

But throughout it all, and despite all the clandestine US lil nasty directives here and wee designs there, no one doubts the Americans will always be the “good guys."

[Severin]

Lone Syrian, I believe in a lot of what you say, you're just a dick the way you say it. Obviously you are good at dodging the ban. If you start up another new account and manage to keep it at least 1/2 way in your pants as far as ranting and personal vendettas go, you could probably contribute legit points to our debate for some time to come.

I imagine this will be locked next time Steve checks the board. Feel free to respond in your next, i dunno what to call it, "surfacing"

[Battlefront.com]

Nah, I'm not locking this yet, but nipped LoneSyrian before he posted again. Despite that being a pretty lucid and polite post, it should never have been made due to the well deserved ban for past behavior.

And for the record... the US government has quite openly supported the Etheopian invasion of Somalia. The Islamists did themselves in when they openly stated that they would act as a base of operations for al Qaeda. That was a rather dumb move on their part. The should have been deceitful about it and maybe someone would have some sympathy for getting removed so swiftly from power.

Steve