Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Taliban "stop killing us, or we will do it for you". US "hmmm not seeing a downside here"   (cnn.com) divider line 115
    More: Dumbass, A Taliban, polio vaccine, United States, North Waziristan, Pakistan, Haqqanis, military officials, Haqqani network  
•       •       •

17151 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2012 at 9:55 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-18 10:46:33 AM  
So why is it that Afghanistan is still living in the stone age? (Reads article) Oh, now I understand.
 
2012-06-18 10:47:03 AM  

austin_millbarge: I like this idea. Drop cinder block on them. I imagine that would be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers.


I imagine the JDAM kit is the expensive part of a guided bomb. We already have, probably millions of tons of unguided bombs we can put JDAM kits on. They've already been made and paid for (during Vietnam).

From what I've heard on documentaries, the cement bombs are used when they can't have the same sort of blast radius you get from a normal bomb. (EX: if you need to drop a bomb on a single apartment without destroying the apartments around it)
 
2012-06-18 10:52:37 AM  

fluffy2097: Right....

So this is the kind of war they want us to be waging? B-52's dropping 2000lb mk-84 unguided bombs by the thousand to destroy a single target?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]

Or, We could send a single one of these and drop a single Laser guided bomb to destroy a target.
[twistedsifter.sifter.netdna-cdn.com image 640x480]

Hell, We're so good at targeting LGB's and JDAM's these days, we sometimes just fill the bomb with cement and rely on kinetic impact alone to take out the target.

Now. I understand wanting an end to the killing. That's a completely legitimate request. Stop bombing us.

Asking us to stop using precision munitions is just requesting us to kill more people by not using guided weapons.

I'd like if we stopped bombing entirely, but since we cannot do that, we should probably keep using the drones.


That's a B-2. Has anybody pointed that out, yet?
 
2012-06-18 10:55:26 AM  

ChipNASA: [j.wigflip.com image 376x662]


That is pretty good artwork.
 
2012-06-18 10:57:52 AM  

fluffy2097: So this is the kind of war they want us to be waging? B-52's dropping 2000lb mk-84 unguided bombs by the thousand to destroy a single target?


Yes, but, "The whole shack shimmies! The whole shack shimmies when everybody's dropping 2000lb mk-84 unguided bombs by the thousand to destroy a single target!" just doesn't scan as well.
 
2012-06-18 11:00:47 AM  

lobotomy survivor: ChipNASA: [j.wigflip.com image 376x662]

That is pretty good artwork.


Not mine...I just modify them.
 
2012-06-18 11:02:16 AM  

iheartscotch: Guess who just signed up for more drone strikes. If they want their children to die horrible, 100% preventable deaths; then let them. Maybe that will finally convince the people thaalthea taliban are not their friends.


Perhaps it's the optimist in me, but the the North Wazirstan area has been an armed camp since long before the Taliban showed up. In fact the Pakistani Army and civil authroties have been afraid to go there for years. Think the backwoods of Kentucky if all the residents had RPGs and ak-47s. Now If I were a Waziri father, and some dickhead told me that my kid was going to be at risk for a horrible fatal disease because he wanted a bargaining chip to use against his enemy, Well, let's just say I'd use to marksmanship skils I learned hunting for my supper to send Allah one more martyr
 
2012-06-18 11:05:42 AM  

fluffy2097: Right....

So this is the kind of war they want us to be waging? B-52's dropping 2000lb mk-84 unguided bombs by the thousand to destroy a single target?


Has anyone told you that's a B-2?
 
2012-06-18 11:06:54 AM  
Am I supposed to cry?
 
2012-06-18 11:08:13 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: fluffy2097: Right....

So this is the kind of war they want us to be waging? B-52's dropping 2000lb mk-84 unguided bombs by the thousand to destroy a single target?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]

That's a B-2.


Yeah and compared to the b-52 is an absolute lightweight: One B-52 and it ordanance load:
www.militaryfactory.com

Fortunately we don't fight wars on the old "flatten everything in a 10 mile radius " model anymore- In Afghanistan especially, such tactic would just make everyone MORE stubborn. The slected elimination of the enemy command structure is MUCH more effective, which is why this guy is complaining so bitterly about it
 
2012-06-18 11:09:39 AM  
Why does the US even bother? The "War on Terror" was lost a long time ago and you can't force civilization on people who absolutely don't want it (mainly because of jeebus / allah). I don't see how the US can "win" anything in this.

What is the US trying to achieve?

*puts on tinfoil hat*

Maybe the US just using this "war" in Afghanistan as an excuse to refine it's remote-assassination technology through live fire experiments.

*takes off tinf
 
2012-06-18 11:14:14 AM  
mtglair.de
 
2012-06-18 11:21:59 AM  
Pakistan remains one of only three countries that have yet to eradicate polio.

... yet they have nukes. Talk about priorities. It never cease to amaze me that the 'good' application of technologies are very narrow focus and will never be adopted corporately.
Based on human history and culture I can totally see some parts of the world still using bicycles, cars and suffering from famine, common illness and strive etc 500 yrs from now even when humans have moved to a Type 1 or 2 civilization or harness the energies of black holes etc and achieve close to lightspeed travels.
 
2012-06-18 11:25:47 AM  

Magorn: Fortunately we don't fight wars on the old "flatten everything in a 10 mile radius " model anymore- In Afghanistan especially, such tactic would just make everyone MORE stubborn. The slected elimination of the enemy command structure is MUCH more effective, which is why this guy is complaining so bitterly about it


There's always the intimidation factor. They say that during the 90's Gulf War, some Iraqi colonels and generals surrendering said that one of the main reasons they were having their units stand down was due to B-52 strikes. When asked how many times they were bombed by B-52's, they said zero, but they had heard about what happened to units that were.

During the recent Libya campaign, I was hoping they would do something like this:
Take our B-52's and B-1's and fly them in formation towards Tripoli. All of them, every damn one we have. Then call up the Libyans, tell them to check their radar and/or look up. "If Qaddafi doesn't resign from power in a hour these planes will start bombing your forces."
 
2012-06-18 11:27:19 AM  

Magorn: Fortunately we don't fight wars on the old "flatten everything in a 10 mile radius " model anymore- In Afghanistan especially, such tactic would just make everyone MORE stubborn. The slected elimination of the enemy command structure is MUCH more effective, which is why this guy is complaining so bitterly about it


Ahem. Make who more stubborn? Dead people aren't very stubborn.
 
2012-06-18 11:28:31 AM  

fluffy2097:
Hell, We're so good at targeting LGB's and JDAM's these days, we sometimes just fill the bomb with cement and rely on kinetic impact alone to take out the target.
.


Extremely effective vs tanks.
 
2012-06-18 11:28:40 AM  

Magorn: Satanic_Hamster: fluffy2097: Right....

So this is the kind of war they want us to be waging? B-52's dropping 2000lb mk-84 unguided bombs by the thousand to destroy a single target?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]

That's a B-2.

Yeah and compared to the b-52 is an absolute lightweight: One B-52 and it ordanance load:
[www.militaryfactory.com image 640x461]

Fortunately we don't fight wars on the old "flatten everything in a 10 mile radius " model anymore- In Afghanistan especially, such tactic would just make everyone MORE stubborn. The slected elimination of the enemy command structure is MUCH more effective, which is why this guy is complaining so bitterly about it


Yes, actually we do. The B-52 has been used extensively in both Iraq and Iran. But we do attempt to used them only on military targets and in areas where civilian casualties will be limited.

We will never defeat the Taliban. They are the the guerrillas formerly known as the Mujahideen. The Soviet Union couldn't defeat them and we won't either.
 
2012-06-18 11:35:14 AM  

Dr Dreidel: What's the Taliban really saying here? "Stop using methods of attacking us that keep your troops off the battlefield. It's not fair that you're shooting at/bombing our 'troops', but we only get to fire at your paper planes!"


Pretty much. It's the same thing medieval knights said about crossbows, or the Turks said about the Mongols, or British troops about the American rebels. One side calls it "dishonorable," "unfair," or "cowardly," while the other side calls it "clever" or describes it as "superior tactics."

It does, however, cut both ways.
 
2012-06-18 11:36:54 AM  

JackieRabbit: Yes, actually we do. The B-52 has been used extensively in both Iraq and Iran. But we do attempt to used them only on military targets and in areas where civilian casualties will be limited.

We will never defeat the Taliban. They are the the guerrillas formerly known as the Mujahideen. The Soviet Union couldn't defeat them and we won't either.


We might not, but polio will.
 
2012-06-18 11:39:48 AM  
As long as no one confuses the drones with a B-2. That would be offensive.
 
2012-06-18 11:50:13 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Why does the US even bother? The "War on Terror" was lost a long time ago and you can't force civilization on people who absolutely don't want it (mainly because of jeebus / allah). I don't see how the US can "win" anything in this.

What is the US trying to achieve?


I feel the same way about the war on crime. We'll never stop criminals, there will always be criminals. We can never completely prevent murder and no matter how long we try, it will never be eradicated. So why do we even bother?

Perhaps the answer is amazingly obvious and simple to some but you and I are deep thinkers.
 
2012-06-18 11:53:32 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Why does the US even bother? The "War on Terror" was lost a long time ago and you can't force civilization on people who absolutely don't want it (mainly because of jeebus / allah). I don't see how the US can "win" anything in this.


Why did you say Allah doesn't want civilization? You're one of those conservative Islamophobes, aren't you?

/jeebus is the truly uncivilized one, spreading disgusting WASP culture through terrorist means like vaccinations and building overly tall skyscrapers
//I WANT TO BELIEVE JEEBUS, AND ONLY JEEBUS, IS WRONG
 
2012-06-18 11:56:18 AM  

fluffy2097: So this is the kind of war they want us to be waging? B-52's dropping 2000lb mk-84 unguided bombs by the thousand to destroy a single target?


I don't know crap about planes, but I hear that's a B-2. Read it in a thread on Fark somewhere.
 
2012-06-18 11:57:06 AM  
Why does polio even still exist?
 
2012-06-18 12:02:38 PM  
I, for one, am thankful that the taliban is made up of so many morans.
 
2012-06-18 12:06:15 PM  

ABQGOD: Why does polio even still exist?


Because the environmentalists shiat a brick when we rendered smallpox extinct in the wild.

/took 50 years to reintroduce it from lab specimens
//even viruses have human rights
 
2012-06-18 12:07:15 PM  

Tatterdemalian: //even viruses have human rights


eeek. sounds like one of the ender's game sequels.
 
2012-06-18 12:12:13 PM  
B-2, or not B-2, that is the question.
 
2012-06-18 12:20:57 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: fluffy2097: Right....

So this is the kind of war they want us to be waging? B-52's dropping 2000lb mk-84 unguided bombs by the thousand to destroy a single target?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]

That's a B-2.


You can tell because it's missing the 5.
 
2012-06-18 12:23:15 PM  

Magorn: Fortunately we don't fight wars on the old "flatten everything in a 10 mile radius " model anymore- In Afghanistan especially, such tactic would just make everyone MORE stubborn. The slected elimination of the enemy command structure is MUCH more effective, which is why this guy is complaining so bitterly about it


Well, we don't do it in Afghanistan largely because it's sparsely populated enough that it wouldn't be economical in the first place.

And yeah, targeted strikes are much more effective.
 
2012-06-18 12:28:05 PM  

iheartscotch: Guess who just signed up for more drone strikes. If they want their children to die horrible, 100% preventable deaths; then let them. Maybe that will finally convince the people thaalthea taliban are not their friends.


They figured that out some time ago. The best thing we could do now is give the population cell phones that can just dial the number of 1-800-KILLTALIBAN. When a group of those assholes show up and start shoving people around, the people can dime them out and get them a droning.
 
2012-06-18 12:29:35 PM  

fluffy2097: Right....

So this is the kind of war they want us to be waging? B-52's dropping 2000lb mk-84 unguided bombs by the thousand to destroy a single target?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]

Or, We could send a single one of these and drop a single Laser guided bomb to destroy a target.
[twistedsifter.sifter.netdna-cdn.com image 640x480]

Hell, We're so good at targeting LGB's and JDAM's these days, we sometimes just fill the bomb with cement and rely on kinetic impact alone to take out the target.

Now. I understand wanting an end to the killing. That's a completely legitimate request. Stop bombing us.

Asking us to stop using precision munitions is just requesting us to kill more people by not using guided weapons.

I'd like if we stopped bombing entirely, but since we cannot do that, we should probably keep using the drones.


That is not a b52 and those are not mk-84s

Those are not laser guided bombs.

I don't have a problem with them with holding treatment of their own people I also do not have a problem with dropping tons of unguided bombs on them. The problem with this limited strikes is that the message does not get through to the people, because the impact is not felt by the people who support these nut jobs. If we went in there and laid waste every time there was a terrorist attack I think the terrorist would find their support vanish.
 
2012-06-18 12:30:53 PM  

Skyred: What is the point of this? Why would the military care if they stop vaccinating people?


The polio vaccine also contains the communist zombie vaccine.
 
2012-06-18 12:32:57 PM  

ABQGOD: Why does polio even still exist?


I'll sum up for you: Pakistan is one of only 3 countries in the entire world to have not eradicated polio. That's a big takeaway here. This is a poorly organized, undereducated, and shellshocked population. Any attempts to reason with them is just as undereducated.
 
2012-06-18 12:36:37 PM  

fluffy2097: WelldeadLink: And those are mk-82 bombs, and 47 rather than a thousand.

Well yes, But the B-2 can carry the Mk-84, and we can drop thousands given enough B-2s and enough sorties. Saturation bombing takes more then one bombing raid and one bomber.

I figured if we were going to talk about total war, we should haul out the big bombs, not the wimpy MK-82's.

Once we're done with the B-2's, lets fly some C-130's over and drop MOABs. Those are unguided too. that makes them OK in the Talibans eyes, yes?


They modified the B-2 so it can carry MOABs now :D
 
2012-06-18 12:46:08 PM  

ABQGOD: Why does polio even still exist?


Because rich people still have horses to put in their swimming pools.
 
2012-06-18 12:49:28 PM  

This About That: So these asshats threaten the free world with letting their own children die of polio or become cripples. Yeah, religious fanatics do get more evil than that, but not by much.


I'm not sure who, or how. Burning people at the stake isn't as heinous as letting kids die out of spite.
 
2012-06-18 01:18:02 PM  

inelegy: [mtglair.de image 312x445]


That must be an old card. Under the new 2012 rules for MTG, that would only cost 1 red mana, would be a 5/5 instead of 2/2, also have trample, and destroys all permanents.

/Bitter at the new MTG sets
 
2012-06-18 01:34:43 PM  

Profedius: I don't have a problem with them with holding treatment of their own people I also do not have a problem with dropping tons of unguided bombs on them. The problem with this limited strikes is that the message does not get through to the people, because the impact is not felt by the people who support these nut jobs. If we went in there and laid waste every time there was a terrorist attack I think the terrorist would find their support vanish.


That theory has been put forth before innumerable times, from at least the time of the Roman Empire, and it's generally not worked. But if we just use *THAT* much more force this time, I'm *SURE* it will work. Guaranteed.
 
2012-06-18 01:47:22 PM  
Checks arcane sources..... Yep, that's evil.
 
2012-06-18 02:18:37 PM  
While I agree that this is a veiled threat, it's one not entirely disconnected from logic. The Taliban's concern is that door-to-door polio screening and shots are being used to identify targets. Considering that this is precisely the way that Bin Laden's whereabouts were ascertained, it seems like a not-illegitimate position to take.

However, from a Taliban hearts-and-minds perspective, it's a tactical mistake, so let them make it.
 
2012-06-18 02:20:04 PM  

chuggernaught: Checks arcane sources..... Yep, that's evil.

.........................................^ug
 
2012-06-18 02:30:28 PM  
So.... the drone strikes are working, I take it.

/this dude's afraid aware that soon he'll be riding a Hellfire into hellfire... fitting
 
2012-06-18 02:52:20 PM  

unyon: Considering that this is precisely the way that Bin Laden's whereabouts were ascertained, it seems like a not-illegitimate position to take.


Actually, that attempt failed. They located him by figuring out who is courier was and finding him.
 
2012-06-18 03:13:38 PM  

dittybopper: unyon: Considering that this is precisely the way that Bin Laden's whereabouts were ascertained, it seems like a not-illegitimate position to take.

Actually, that attempt failed. They located him by figuring out who is courier was and finding him.


Mea Culpa, thanks for the correction.

I should have said that this is precisely how they attempted to confirm his location. Successful or not, it's probably arguable that this tactic has been used, successfully, to identify other targets for future drone strikes. In any event, the Taliban are probably wise to be suspicious of anyone that goes door to door, from the Avon lady to the milkman.
 
2012-06-18 03:14:22 PM  

dittybopper: Profedius: I don't have a problem with them with holding treatment of their own people I also do not have a problem with dropping tons of unguided bombs on them. The problem with this limited strikes is that the message does not get through to the people, because the impact is not felt by the people who support these nut jobs. If we went in there and laid waste every time there was a terrorist attack I think the terrorist would find their support vanish.

That theory has been put forth before innumerable times, from at least the time of the Roman Empire, and it's generally not worked. But if we just use *THAT* much more force this time, I'm *SURE* it will work. Guaranteed.


Worked for Germany and Japan back in the 40s
 
2012-06-18 03:54:03 PM  

Profedius: dittybopper: Profedius: I don't have a problem with them with holding treatment of their own people I also do not have a problem with dropping tons of unguided bombs on them. The problem with this limited strikes is that the message does not get through to the people, because the impact is not felt by the people who support these nut jobs. If we went in there and laid waste every time there was a terrorist attack I think the terrorist would find their support vanish.

That theory has been put forth before innumerable times, from at least the time of the Roman Empire, and it's generally not worked. But if we just use *THAT* much more force this time, I'm *SURE* it will work. Guaranteed.

Worked for Germany and Japan back in the 40s


Sure, just ask Reinhard Heydrich.
 
2012-06-18 03:55:01 PM  

lennavan: I feel the same way about the war on crime. We'll never stop criminals, there will always be criminals. We can never completely prevent murder and no matter how long we try, it will never be eradicated. So why do we even bother?


The War on Terror is futile because terrorism is a method. Fighting a war on a method is just stupid. The notion of fighting a "war on crime" is equally stupid, because as you say, you can never completely remove it.

You fight crime first through prevention, mainly by educating the population and reducing / removing social ills, second by cleaning up the mess when crimes do happen (which includes rehabilitation). Terrorism is just another form of crime, and it should be dealt with as just another form of crime. Not by sending in a killer drone.

What the US is doing in Afghanistan / Pakistan has nothing to do with terrorism.
 
2012-06-18 03:58:12 PM  

URAPNIS: Magorn: Fortunately we don't fight wars on the old "flatten everything in a 10 mile radius " model anymore- In Afghanistan especially, such tactic would just make everyone MORE stubborn. The slected elimination of the enemy command structure is MUCH more effective, which is why this guy is complaining so bitterly about it

Ahem. Make who more stubborn? Dead people aren't very stubborn.


Yes, actually they are. Have you ever tried to get a dead person to do something? They just sit there and stare at you, like they didn't hear you. You tell them "Go wash up and clean up that mess you are getting all over the floor" and generally they get all contrarian and ooze some more body fluids.

And they don't get better with time. They'll stubbornly sit there for years. You go to move them a few years later and they get all passive-aggressive. Try to pick their desicated ass up and they'll detach their arm to make it harder for you. Huge cloud of dust - all disgusting too - that's old dead skin you breathe in. Makes you sneeze for what seems like hours.
 
2012-06-18 04:01:02 PM  

Uncle Tractor: The War on Terror is futile because terrorism is a method. Fighting a war on a method is just stupid. The notion of fighting a "war on crime" is equally stupid, because as you say, you can never completely remove it.


Agreed.

Uncle Tractor: You fight crime first through prevention, mainly by educating the population and reducing


Wait, you just said fighting crime is stupid. Did you change your mind? I imagine killing a terrorist is a decent way of preventing future terrorism. Is your beef with the method?

Uncle Tractor: Terrorism is just another form of crime, and it should be dealt with as just another form of crime. Not by sending in a killer drone.


Wait, again so your beef is not with attacking terrorists or the label, your beef is with the method itself? That's a completely different argument. Would you mind planting yourself for a minute, it's hard to have a discussion with all of this shifting around. If you're against teh drone strikes by all means. But to frame your "I hate drone strikes" argument as a "The War on Terror is stupid" is let's go with "silly."
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report