Re: pentagon tells same old lie...

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by chuckcar, Dec 13, 2009.

  1. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "§nühw¤£f" <> wrote in
    news:Xns9CDFA193CE4B1snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142:

    > Gosh the parralells between the BushCo admin and the ObamaRealChange
    > [tm] admin are increasingly apparent. Seems like the magic number is
    > 30,not 42 as some would claim:
    > http://www.alternet.org/world/144509/why_do_airstrikes_in_afghanistan
    > _keep_killing_exactly_30_people
    >

    Missed the word estimate did you? considering that in each case the same
    number of munitions quite likely were used, I fail to see how you could
    come up with a better guess.



    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Dec 13, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "§nühw¤£f" <> wrote in
    news:Xns9CE093504CD81snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142:

    > chuckcar <> clouded the waters of pure thought with
    > news:Xns9CE08C77011A8chuck@127.0.0.1:
    >
    >> "§nühw¤£f" <> wrote in
    >> news:Xns9CDFA193CE4B1snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142:
    >>
    >>> Gosh the parralells between the BushCo admin and the
    >>> ObamaRealChange [tm] admin are increasingly apparent. Seems like
    >>> the magic number is 30,not 42 as some would claim:
    >>> http://www.alternet.org/world/144509/why_do_airstrikes_in_afghanis
    >>> tan _keep_killing_exactly_30_people
    >>>

    >> Missed the word estimate did you? considering that in each case
    >> the same number of munitions quite likely were used, I fail to see
    >> how you could come up with a better guess.
    >>

    > The number is based upon the fact that numbers of casualties above 30
    > required signing off by Rumsfeld. This is a carry-over from the Bush
    > doctrine. So much for Obama being an agent of CHANGE.
    > LULZ!
    >

    Do you have independant information that Rumsfeld did so and that it's
    still done now? that article didn't mention that at all.



    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Dec 14, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chuckcar

    Aardvark Guest

    On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:00:30 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

    > "§nühw€£f" <> wrote in
    > news:Xns9CE093504CD81snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142:
    >
    >> chuckcar <> clouded the waters of pure thought with
    >> news:Xns9CE08C77011A8chuck@127.0.0.1:


    >> The number is based upon the fact that numbers of casualties above 30
    >> required signing off by Rumsfeld. This is a carry-over from the Bush
    >> doctrine. So much for Obama being an agent of CHANGE. LULZ!
    >>

    > Do you have independant information that Rumsfeld did so and that it's
    > still done now? that article didn't mention that at all.


    Read much?

    "We don't know much about how it works, but in 2007, Marc Garlasco, the
    Pentagon's former chief of high-value targeting, offered a glimpse when he
    told Salon magazine that in 2003, "the magic number was 30." That meant
    that if an attack was anticipated to kill more than 30 civilians, it
    needed the explicit approval of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
    or President George W. Bush. If the expected civilian death toll was less
    than 30, the strike could be OKd by the legal and military commanders on
    the ground."



    --
    Like one that on a lonesome road Doth walk in fear and dread,
    And having once turned round walks on, And turns no more his head,
    Because he knows some frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread.
    -Samuel Taylor Coleridge 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner', 1797
     
    Aardvark, Dec 14, 2009
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    636
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Aug 22, 2007
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Same old bloody same old...

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 13, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    334
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jul 13, 2007
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sun Same Old Same Old

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 24, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    357
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jan 26, 2009
  4. Pat

    Same old, same old

    Pat, Aug 5, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    89
    Views:
    2,041
    Bob Larter
    Aug 11, 2009
  5. thund3rstruck

    Re: pentagon tells same old lie...

    thund3rstruck, Dec 13, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    387
    thanatoid
    Dec 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page