So, the Army has been having difficulty reaching its recruitment quotas. Just tell the boys and girls that they'll have a chance to use all that weaponry against barely literate women and their children.
But Homeland Security fuehrer Kirstjen Nielsen is wasting the opportunity by announcing that the Army has no plans 'right now' to shoot at migrants approaching the border. (This is, of course, a change from past Border Patrol policy.)
But don't worry, Young Americans. Secretary Nielsen indicated to Fox News that there's some hope for sport even so, and the militia have said they're locked and loaded and on the way.
They must be truly excited at finally having a use for their guns...
ReplyDeleteSlavering at the mouth.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if people who do not live in America can ever comprehend the religious exaltation of the gun nut with a gun in his hands. Bernini captured it in his statue of Teresa of Avila. it is both existential and sexual.
The gun nut can -- and does -- sacrifice children, parents, wife to the gun.
And, often enough, himself. The suicide rate among gun nuts is significantly higher then among normals.
Harry, you need to clean the spittle off your monitor.
ReplyDeleteAnd once having completed that gargantuan task, re-read your link.
[OP:] But Homeland Security fuehrer Kirstjen Nielsen is wasting the opportunity by announcing that the Army has no plans 'right now' to shoot at migrants approaching the border.
Your link:
In an interview at the U.S.-Mexico border with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on Thursday, Nielsen explained that border agents don’t intend to use firearms against the migrants.
Then, just for the accuracy of it, do a page search on [army]. Number of occurrences, zero.
Good work, Harry. You must have been a heckuva journalist.
The suicide rate among gun nuts is significantly higher then among normals.
Prove it.
You can Google them your dang self, but the major studies that have been done are at the state level, since research into gun violence is intentionally rendered extremely difficult by, well, the gun nut lobby. Regardless, they show that states with higher gun ownership rates uniformly have higher suicide rates.
DeleteWhich only makes sense, after mere moments of thought, given that guns (1) are easier to muster for a suicide attempt than most other methods; and (2) are more often successful when used for that purpose. Just like with crime.
A British editor calls Trump out:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/30/the-guardian-view-on-donald-trump-using-hate-as-bait
A British editor calls Trump out:
ReplyDeleteBecause Trump is such a hateful person, and the people of Pittsburgh can't stand the thought of him being there.
But back to your cite.
The premises are a joke. It makes a great deal of sense to react strongly to this caravan, so as to dissuade the others that would inevitably follow without such a reaction.
But wait, there's more. "Many families of the victims, along with Pittsburgh’s mayor, asked the president to stay away." The link to the source for that statement does not quantify what "many" means. Do you know how many asked the president to stay away? Does that qualify as many, or two less than several?
(Not that I am expecting you to find that out, since your overwhelming antibodies to facts clearly remain as strong as ever.)
And you missed the irony of the Guardian, water carrier for the Labor party, which is up to its neck in anti-semitism, having a hissy fit about Trump.
No surprise there, though. With progs, it is crippling TDS all the way down..
" It makes a great deal of sense to react strongly to this caravan..."
DeleteOnly if you've swallowed whole all of the detestable, made-up lies about it. It's a caravan of refugees, the victims of violence, not the perpetrators. Trump & co., insofar as they consider the caravan as something more than just a political tool, see the brown faces and assume that they're rife with criminals, terrorists, walking plague victims, shapeshifting aliens, etc. But then Trump & co. have dropped all pretense of late and made their racist appeals rather blatant, so we only expect this of them. What's your excuse?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-stoking-caravan-fears-says-troops-will-fire-migrants-throw-rocks-003953495.html
ReplyDeleteWill our soldiers shoot down defenseless brown people? The commander-in-chief says,'Hell,yeah' and in the 411 years since English soldiers have been in North America they have never refused a chance to slaughter the browns as long as they faced no danger themselves.
"Will our soldiers shoot down defenseless brown people?"
ReplyDeleteEh, not so much.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/us/politics/trump-immigration.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
""A Defense Department official said the American military’s rules of engagement allowed deadly force to be used if a service member was faced with an imminent threat of death or injury. But the official said the military units headed to the border with weapons, such as the military police, would keep them stored unless told otherwise. The official could not say if they would be issued ammunition, but did not expect them to be in a position to use their weapons."
Trump can somehow mobilize 15,000 U.S. troops, at a cost of $50 million or so, to confront a refugee caravan that's still weeks away and will likely be dozens strong when it finally reaches the U.S. border, but couldn't be bothered for, say, Puerto Rico. But in this case, the military, unlike Trumpsters, hasn't lost their heads, it would seem.
Which is to say, of course, that this caravan will magically cease to be an issue next Wednesday.
Delete"It makes a great deal of sense to react strongly to this caravan, so as to dissuade the others that would inevitably follow without such a reaction."
ReplyDeleteMessage: "Downtrodden refugees across the world, please just die."
M.
ReplyDeletePresuming this caravan shows up at the US border, what do you propose the proper response is?
Then what?
Process them as the refugees they claim to be, as they were for decades prior.
DeleteAgain, one is only afraid of this "caravan" to the extent one accepts the historically ignorant, fear-mongering Trumpian lies about it. Or to the extent that one fears more brown faces in America.
M, it isn't a matter of "brown faces" -- a nasty accusation.
DeleteRather, it is a matter of believing that, as a sovereign nation, the US has the right to control its borders. And unrestricted immigration carries with it many negative consequences.
If you are in favor of open borders, just be honest about it.
Harry, in the interests of journalistic integrity, are you going to fix your post?
ReplyDeleteIf the c-in-c says shoot, will they shoot? I say they will
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/world/africa/nigeria-trump-rocks.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
ReplyDeleteQED
If the c-in-c says shoot, will they shoot? I say they will.
ReplyDeleteThen I say you are either woefully ignorant, or a complete idiot.
But then I only have first hand experience to go on, so there's that.
Skipper, how many people did you kill?
DeleteI don't know, Clovis.
DeleteI do know that mission planners -- I was the one who did the most planning at Incirlik -- paid scrupulous attention to the rules of war. We sometimes excluded targets, or restricted our tactics, in order to minimize as much as we could the possibility of non-combatant deaths. And we had very strict rules of engagement to avoid accidental collateral damage.
Regardless of what Harry thinks, service members aren't bloodthirsty automatons.
Once upon a time, the C-in-C told you to shoot, and you did.
DeleteYou have no idea how many people your shots killed, nor how many were poor innocent souls.
Yet you scold Harry?
Yes, I scold Harry.
DeleteThe C-in-C told us to shoot, but not only did that not mean we would shoot at just anything, it also meant there were many things we would not shoot at, and, what's more, go to great lengths to avoid even accidentally shooting.
Which is a heck of a lot different than Harry concluding that because Trump says shoot, soldiers will shoot. That is risible on its face.
Trump personally calls at the local commander at the border ans says:"shoot at every damn brown person crossing with this damn caravan if they set foot on American soil".
DeleteYou say the local commander won't?
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
DeleteWell, aside from the fact that your hypo does unimaginable violence to the chain of command.
DeleteAnd Trump doing violence to established rules is unimaginable to you?
DeleteAlso, if the army won't ever shoot the brown people as you say, what the heck they are doing there, other than making a fool of you guys who support Trump?
And Trump doing violence to established rules is unimaginable to you?
DeleteThe chain of command isn't something Trump can do violence to. He can make silly noises, he can engage in tweetstorms, but he can't jump the chain of command.
Also, if the army won't ever shoot the brown people as you say, what the heck they are doing there, other than making a fool of you guys who support Trump?
You think the only thing the Army can do is shoot people? Wow.
Pro-tip: I do not support Trump. I agree with some of his policies, including enforcing our immigration laws. What you might have interpreted as support for Trump the person is actually responding to people who have succumbed to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
No. 1 Rule of combat aviation: If you go low enough and slow enough to aim, you don't come back. So don't aim.
DeleteUnless you are bombing defenseless people.
The history of bombing is mostly terror bombing, it didn't produce militarily significant results.. (The terror existed on both sides when the enemy had means to defend himself.)
No. 1 Rule of combat aviation: If you go low enough and slow enough to aim, you don't come back. So don't aim.
DeleteHard to tell whether that statement suffers more from arrogance, or ignorance.
Either way, it is suffering a great deal.
No, the Army does not only shoot people, Skipper. That's their primary function, but they also do more menial Work, like rolling wire obstacles and so on.
DeleteBut as usual, in your lack of curiosity on everything Trump, you can't ask yourself what more they are doing there to justify the money you paid for it.
Clovis, what they are, or are not, doing there is beside the point, which is Harry's disgusting and ignorant accusations.
DeleteAs for their primary function, my guess is that it is essentially PR and symbolic, a demonstration that the US does not have open borders to anyone who decides they are entitled to enter.
Not too long ago, you gave me a bunch of stick for somehow thinking there proxies for behavior.
You might want to rethink your lazy reasoning.
Skipper,
DeleteYour answer was too cryptic to my small mind, sorry.
What the link you gave has to do with the present topic?
How the army presence there is related to my accusations of your prejudice towards Muslims?
Clovis, the link has nothing to do with the present topic -- sorry, I should have been clearer.
DeleteIt did remind me that you accused me of racism and Islamophobia when I stated that Islam, and Muslims who take it seriously, are incompatible with the post-Enlightenment west.
It is neither of those.
Skipper,
DeleteYou are having serious trouble with your copy and paste skills, you just gave the same links again.
To be clear, I not only accused you of Islamophobia, but I proved it to my satisfaction. Though if my judging criteria aren't suitable for you, I can't help - you were being judgeg in a tribunal of my own mind (just like you do with Muslims), not in a public court.
I am, after all, entitled to make my own opinions about your discourse.
You are having serious trouble with your copy and paste skills, you just gave the same links again.
DeleteI hang my head in shame.
To be clear, I not only accused you of Islamophobia, but I proved it to my satisfaction.
Well, if you proved my Islamophobia to your satisfaction, then clearly this didn't happen, and because it didn't happen, it didn't involve Islam, or any Muslims, or multiple murders which weren't carried out by Muslims, and it certainly didn't have anything to to with punishing blasphemy, which, because it didn't happen, means Islam and the Muslims who didn't have anything to do with what didn't happen would be a perfect fit in the West.
Right?
Skipper,
DeleteEvery time this topic comes up, you behave like a 9 years old. This is the only explanation I have for an otherwise intelligent person so easily incurring in the faulty generalization fallacy.
Hey Skipper, in how many ways this news is spitting in your face?
Delete[Clovis:] This is the only explanation I have for an otherwise intelligent person so easily incurring in the faulty generalization fallacy.
DeleteIn order for anything I've said about Islam and its compatibility with Western civilization to be a generalization fallacy, I would have had to engage in unjustified generalizations. But to get there, you actually have to make an argument.
For instance, you could show that reporting on Asia Bibi is false; that what happened to her did not involve Muslims; it was an isolated case; Pakistan does not experience sectarian violence; majority Islamic countries are havens of religious tolerance; Pew surveys of Muslim attitudes do not show widespread anti-Semitism; tolerance of different lifestyles is widespread in the Islamic world; that Muslims do not attempt to force their diktats upon non-believers; that Ayan Hirsi Ali is Islamophobic.
Instead you do none of these things. Rather, you are like progressives everywhere, hurling insults where an argument belongs.
So, by all means, make an argument. And don't forget to quote me directly where appropriate.
Hey Skipper, in how many ways this news is spitting in your face?
How about you telling me in how many ways that news is spitting in my face. Is it this?
The returning service members include engineering and logistics units whose jobs included placing concertina wire and other barriers to limit access to ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Or this?
You are swimming in a spit pool, Skipper, it is so thick you lost sight of it.
DeleteOnce again, Clovis, an insult where an argument belongs.
DeleteThat you have never tried is prima facie evidence you can't.
It is only wise use of my time, Skipper.
DeleteThe facts are all there for both of us to see. We just don't share the same moral priors that give them personal meaning.
Clovis, this isn't about "moral" priors.
DeleteThis both philosophical and factual.
I gave you all kinds of options that you could have chosen rather than being a typical, thoughtless, progressive twit.
Here are a couple more.
Read Ayan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel". Caution: she is handicapped by having only a great deal of personal knowledge to go on.
And, having done that, read Bernard Lewis's "Crisis of Islam". But he was merely a highly respected scholar, so I am sure you are correct he is an ignorant Islamophobe.
Then, having done that. None of which you will do, because, as a progressive, you already know everything, restate my thesis in a way that is both accurate and fair, then tell me how I got it wrong.
Or, because you are a progressive and already know everything, keep sucking your thumb.
Skipper,
DeleteThe reason you are an Islamophobe is not because you criticize those large patches of the Islam world where feudal rules are still norm. That's indeed a fact.
The reason you are prejudiced is that, by your own confession, you will think the worst of single individuals you may randomly meet anywhere, based on single external cues of their religion. That's as bigoted as someone can be.
BTW, the moral priors were not even in reference to the islam discussion (which I am tired of and wasn't the topic here), but about immigrants, and theatrical use of the Army to symbolize force against desperate poor people. We can't share the same moral priors if you were applauding it.
DeleteThe reason you are prejudiced is that, by your own confession, you will think the worst of single individuals you may randomly meet anywhere, based on single external cues of their religion.
DeleteWhat a load of nonsense: I insist that there are visible proxies that can, statistically, tell a great deal about people. You are surrounded by proxies, and make judgments based upon them all the time -- you wouldn't be able to function in public without supervision otherwise.
You can make a likely correct judgment about a person's attitudes towards Jews if that person happens to be wearing Nazi regalia.
Guess what, if someone is presenting as a devout Muslim, you can make some very likely correct judgments about them, too.
That's not bigoted, that is reality.
We can't share the same moral priors if you were applauding it.
Let's start with this prior: Does the US have the right, as a sovereign nation, to control its borders?
Yes, or no.
Skipper,
Delete---
You can make a likely correct judgment about a person's attitudes towards Jews if that person happens to be wearing Nazi regalia.
Guess what, if someone is presenting as a devout Muslim, you can make some very likely correct judgments about them, too.
---
That's the reason I can't discuss this topic with you. I don't take much offense on people being prejudiced - but, boy, if you give me a statement of such mathematical ignorance, I do get mad.
The reason you can easily divine a neonazi from his clothes and behavior is because there are so few of them, to the tune of, maybe, a few thousands in the whole world. Very low variability.
But the other group you tar is numbered on 1.6 billion.
If you think you can divine the mind of any single person of this huge group by mere inspection, you are ignorant in many ways, but the illiteracy on statistics is the one that hurts more. And it is not the first time, you showed similar ignorance when we were discussing crime statistics.
What is worst, you feel no shame at all.
---
Let's start with this prior: Does the US have the right, as a sovereign nation, to control its borders?
---
Go on developing your next fallacy.
[Clovis:] That's the reason I can't discuss this topic with you. I don't take much offense on people being prejudiced - but, boy, if you give me a statement of such mathematical ignorance, I do get mad.
DeleteSay you see a man wearing the collar of a Catholic priest. What do you suppose his stance on abortion is? Pre-marital sex?
Or a guy wearing a National Rifle Association hat. Do you think he believes that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon the existence of an organized militia? Might you guess he owns a gun?
Let's say you see a couple wearing clothing marking them as pious Muslims? Might you suspect that they firmly believe in the requirements of Islam? Are those requirements consistent, or antagonistic to, post-Enlightenment western societies?
This isn't illiteracy about statistics, it is about your continuing baffling incomprehension about what I clearly said, which explicitly did not apply to all Muslims, but only those presenting as pious Muslims.
[Hey Skipper:] Let's start with this prior: Does the US have the right, as a sovereign nation, to control its borders?
---
[Clovis:] Go on developing your next fallacy.
That's not a fallacy, that's a question.
Skipper,
Delete---
Say you see a man wearing the collar of a Catholic priest. What do you suppose his stance on abortion is? Pre-marital sex?
---
The answer depends on your definition of "stance": does it cover what people say or what people do (or yet what they really think, even if only for themselves)?
Analogous ambiguity apply for Muslims.
As for mixing it with the NRA example, you only beclown yourself again.
---
[Clovis:] Go on developing your next fallacy.
That's not a fallacy, that's a question.
---
A rhetorical one, marked as entrance for your next fallacy. Just go on with it.
The answer depends on your definition of "stance": does it cover what people say or what people do (or yet what they really think, even if only for themselves)?
DeleteAssume, for just a moment, that when people engage in signification, that they are honestly signifying their beliefs. If someone voluntarily signifies as a devout Catholic, then it would seem foolish to conclude other than that they identify with what separates devout Catholics from the rest of us.
Just as with the NRA example, which is exactly corollary. It is a very fair bet that someone who exhibits apparent allegiance with the NRA identifies and agrees with the NRA's core values on guns. If you disagree with that, I'd love to hear why.
Presuming both those conclusions are most likely to be consistent with objective fact, then it seems particularly odd to assume there is no correlation whatsoever with those voluntarily signifying as devout Muslims, and adherence to Islamic beliefs. If you happen to think there is no correlation, that somehow we aren't able to draw that conclusion, I'd love to hear why.
A rhetorical one, marked as entrance for your next fallacy. Just go on with it.
No, it isn't.
If you believe that the US should throw open its borders, then make that claim, and defend it.
Otherwise, you really must have some idea what the US should do in response to this caravan, and what the consequences might be.
Instead, you engage in name calling. How very progressive of you.
I have been working fo some time on a very long post about the promise and result of using air power. Due to changed life circumstances, I don't know if it will ever be finished, but the short version is: aerial attacks kill massively but do not result in victoryt.
ReplyDeleteThink of all he wars the United States -- which has the 5 largest air forces -- has lost fighting enemies that did not have even one airplane. Starting with Vietnam
Think of all he wars the United States -- which has the 5 largest air forces -- has lost fighting enemies that did not have even one airplane. Starting with Vietnam ...
ReplyDeleteThink about what a single-factor explanation that is.
Single-factor explanations are almost always wrong.
Thanh Hóa Bridge
ReplyDeleteThanh Hóa Bridge as an example of No. 1 Rule of combat aviation: If you go low enough and slow enough to aim, you don't come back. So don't aim.?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can something better.
The raid had been carried out with great precision, but despite having been hit by more than 300 bombs, the Thanh Hóa bridge still stood.
Do you care to learn why, despite having been hit by more than 300 bombs, the bridge still stood?
'From 1964 to 1973, as part of the Secret War operation conducted during the Vietnam War, the US military dropped 260 million cluster bombs – about 2.5 million tons of munitions – on Laos over the course of 580,000 bombing missions.'
ReplyDeleteHarry, I thought you were talking about Thanh Hóa bridge.
ReplyDeleteNo air force aims. Unless the target is defenseless.
ReplyDeleteHarry, with only first hand experience to go on, you are completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd Thanh Hóa bridge -- the example you brought up -- completely contradicts you.
The RAF elevated not aiming to a strategic doctrine with area bombing but the English at least pretended there was a target in the general vicinity. It took the Americans to elevate not aiming to its perfect absurdity with reconnaissance by fire.
ReplyDeleteThe RAF elevated not aiming to a strategic doctrine with area bombing but the English at least pretended there was a target in the general vicinity.
ReplyDeleteI could swear that not too long ago you had made goal post shifting verboten.
Guess not.
But seeing as you have turned the Thanh Hóa bridge goal post into a wicket on a race track with a tennis court, then I think it safe to conclude that your cited example, in fact, completely contradicts your thesis.
As for the RAF, you are wrong, in that if you had cited the RAF from the git go, you would have at least been a little, tiny bit, right.
Bomber Command firmly adhered to Giulio Douhet's air power doctrine. Which, if you had thought for even a second about the RAF's choice of targets, you would have understood. Further, if you weren't so pig-ignorant about air power, you would have realized that the RAF's choice of targets was driven by its capabilities.
It took the Americans to elevate not aiming to its perfect absurdity with reconnaissance by fire.
Which you compound with this load of rubbish. And that is putting it politely.
If you were even a little bit curious — but as an ex-journalist, that is clearly out of the question — then I could explain to you how a B-17 could aim quite accurately, but that defensive tactics that were required in the quest of aiming accurately compromised accurate aiming.
I could swear that not too long ago you touted "truth" as the touchstone of this blog.
You have put lie to that many times, but perhaps nowhere more blatantly, and curably, than here.
So the USAAF didn't aim because if you go low enough . . . . Just as I said. As the Strategic Bombing Survey revealed, USAAF bombs hardly ever hit a target within the blast radius of the bomb. And then only by happenstance.
ReplyDeleteThe Norden bombsight was a fraud just like the rest of strategic bombing. Ray Spruance, the only first-rate combat leader America produced, used to mock the Air Force's claims of bombing precisely 'through ten-tenths cloud cover.'
Harry, do you care to learn anything, or are you bound and determined to keep spewing these self-indicting pronunciamentos?
DeleteAs we all know the air forces in Vietnam (6 of them) faked their action reports. But if anyone cares to look at them, it is enlightening to accept the air forces' own numbers for number of enemy combatants and number of pieces of aerial ordnance expended against them. (That was where we lost the war, on the ground, having already ensured losing by not having a sensible reason to fight.)
ReplyDeleteHarry, this is your claim:
DeleteNo air force aims. Unless the target is defenseless.
Air Forces might have faked after action reports -- although any claim you make absent evidence is automatically suspect -- but that is completely tangential to your initial claim.
But not nearly so tangential as the claim we had no sensible reason to fight. True, or not, it has nothing to do with whether air forces aim.
In that latter regard, you are not just wrong, but epically wrong. Fantastically wrong. Wrong beyond measure, beyond comprehension. So wrong, as to give wholesale ignorance a bad name.
So, if you want to relieve your ignorance, I'm here to help. I am an expert on the subject, and you are a journalist.
But these pronunciamentos, self defeating where they aren't off the reservation, don't allow any progress in that direction.
According the the National Museum of the Air Force 'Using B-52s for close air support at Khe Sanh was considered a radical move. '
ReplyDeleteI'll say.
https://www.npr.org/2012/10/13/162789031/family-fights-for-honor-of-rogue-vietnam-general
ReplyDelete[Harry:] No air force aims. Unless the target is defenseless.
ReplyDeleteHow about we start here?
Just as I said. As the Strategic Bombing Survey revealed, USAAF bombs hardly ever hit a target within the blast radius of the bomb. And then only by happenstance.
ReplyDeleteClearly, Harry, you never read the Strategic Bombing Survey.
Or, if you did, you comprehensively misunderstood it.