dorbie

Unfortunately he does refer to the army as a "mercenary... oops, volunteer force" which I think undermines his point somewhat. He should try living on their pay. His blog would be a lot more pissy. Dumb hack, these guys swear an oath of allegiance and are bound by a code of military justice, what doesn't he understand about that? I guess any dope like this be called a journalist these days? This takes "support the troops" to a new low of non support. If you say you support the troops and then don't actually support them then you're a liar and infact worse than a liar IMHO. This guy does not support our troops, period. You don't get to make that kind of claim while calling them mercenaries no matter how others weasle their claims of support. If you think they're mercenaries or want to make snide comments implying it then uncheck the "support the troops" box and move on, call it an exercise in self discovery or whatever I don't care but knock off he phoney "I support the troops" claim.

A perplexing piece of nannying stupidity..... : http://www.wnbc.com/news/10948106/detail.html How can someone be elected to office in America and so misunderstand the concept of liberty? I wonder if it was always the case that journalists would pretend that EVERY insane idea like this deserves an equal hearing. It would be refreshing to see an article that righteously lambastes fools like Carl Kruger for suck ill considered stunts, butIguess that would be opinion. If the fourth estate takes no position on protecting us from these insipid morons then what good is it? Clarification, original title was about barring legislators who propose this kind of thing from public office.

Doesn't particularly bother me. Criminals get beat up in prison every day. You should appraise yourself of the real facts in the case, not just the spin, and how it was prosecuted based on what evidence and from whom before you contribute your bullshit to the destruction of two lives. REAL facts?!?!? Dude, the agents (by their own testimony) had no idea the guy had committed any crime other than failure to yield. He attempted to surrender, they decided to beat up on him a bit first, he ran, they tried to murder him, then attempted to cover it up (not by attempting to justify the shooting, but to cover up the 'incident' even took place!). Just WTF more do you need to realize that prison is where they belong? Your post is highly misleading, by their admission he was a suspect. The subsequent pursuit and struggle is an escaped drug smuggler's word against theirs, those actions in and of themselves were crimes including evading and assaulting the officers (it turns out he was hauling a LOAD of drugs and managed to flee after a struggle with the officers), and the medical evidence pertaining to the wound on the suspect coroborated the offier's testimony. One of them threw a few spent shells in the canal (wrong) but they weren't supposed to file a report under their own regulation and their supervisor who arrived on the scene and was granted immunity did not file the report he was supposed to. I don't know what's worse, that these guys are in jail or that so many citizens are ready to go along with this railroading where it's their word against an escaped drug smuggler invited to be compensated. It's unbelievable, the concept of reasonable doubt has absolutely no meaning in this country any more.

In the immortal words of St. Hubbins, "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever." Or maybe you just weren't paying attention.

Remember I didn't say I excused it . . . I said I understood it. There is a very fine line between a hopeless romantic, a stalker and a "fatal attraction". If you don't understand that, then I dare say you don't understand much about human nature. The phrase fine line is generally used to describe a boundary between two close items or states of mind in your example. It is not a metaphorical pathway that stretches across from one extreme state through a second to a third. Setting out tooled up on a mission of kidnap and murder is not anywhere near any fine line, unless that fine line is the fine line between murdering psycho bitch from hell and murdering insane deranged bitch from hell. Understanding some motivation does not mean you can understand the cold blooded and pathological disregard for the intended victim throughout the premeditation and attempted execution of the crime.

Granted. They're an rare group w.r.t. getting selected, and they take a significant risk each flight. Ultimately what they actually do is the pinnacle (holy shit simians in space). I'm not necessarily talking about a unique irreplacable contribution that people aren't lining up to do.

Wait a minute. This has already been presented as a strawman proposal by the left to undermine the right's objections to gay marriage. How can anyone then conclude that it's then right wing? Someone help me out here, which way is up please?

It advocates that being violent equals being manly and that being violent proves that you are not gay. it implies that being gay makes one "unmanly" Big difference, same negative message. It's easy to understand why you don't get it. You've never had to deal with it. Maybe if they'd punched each other. Violence? Did you see the same commercial I did?

Doesn't particularly bother me. Criminals get beat up in prison every day. You should appraise yourself of the real facts in the case, not just the spin, and how it was prosecuted based on what evidence and from whom before you contribute your bullshit to the destruction of two lives.

Texas considers killing them as Hollywood gives them Oscars. P.S. I know which I find more repugnant. Clue: it ain't Texas.

Blame the FAC, not the pilot. And unless you wore a Uniform, your position loses a lot of credibility... Did the forward air controller reach over the radio and make the pilot suddenly color blind? There's a reason these guys were doing straffing runs, that reason was FF casualties in Gulf War I over an almost identical incident with different weapons. These guys were using tactics specifically to allow them to identify friendly units and not attack them. Instead they visually identified friendly unit markers and attacked anyway. It's unbelievable, I wonder what you have to do in a chain of command to stop this kind of abject fucking stupidity. When you excuse the indefensible you have NO CREDIBILITY in or out of uniform.

It's just a wild guess but I'd estimate that most of us don't don't go tooling up for kidnap and murder, and implement the plan with such determination at the urging of our hormones. It's just staggering to put this down to that, I wonder if you'd say the same if it was a guy. I'd say her victim was damned lucky. This case really saddens me, someone has gone from the pinnacle of human achivement to less than zero and the bell tolls for us all, but it's a damned good thing that she was thwarted and caught. There's a sober reminder for us all about the human condition in this tale.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/06/D8N4E48O0.html Makes me sick.

Maybe he's just anticipating the Dems will win the next presidential election.

As they should, like it or not those pilots were laying it all on the line to defend British troops in a close air support role, that's not the safest job in the world. You should develop a better appreciation for their sacrifices instead of focusing on the unfortunate outcome they did not wish.

If you listen understanding that they're referring to multiple locations you can see the requests w.r.t locations are horribly confused. The controller says things like "Confirm that is 800m North", and even that was relative to artilery fire, but they made several requests. The friendly forces in this incident had a large orange panel on them to identify them as such. The pilots saw this, then asked for confirmation that there are no friendlies in the area. They were not supposed to attack anything they saw friendly identification markers on, period. The forward controller is not fucking omnipotent. That orange panel is a last ditch IFF to stop blue on blue when all else fails. After seeing orange panels and calling it an orange panel in the video one of them starts to refer to it as orange rockets. Anything fucking orange should have set alarm bells off.

More bandwidth here so you can watch it without all the pauses: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06da463d7

There's about as much chance of you seeing anything wrong with their actions as their is of an A-10 pilot acknowledging that that big bloody patch of orange they see on the thing they're shooting up means it's friendly.

P.S. Attached is a suggestion for all those A10 pilots out there. I wouldn't want one of those dozy buggers flying over me without a pair.

They asked about the wrong area. They kept switching between reveted vehicles for artillery spotting and targets relative to that location which was not where the targets were. They ignored the key warning markers on the vehicles. They saw them and filtered the information, which is the most culpable part. Should they be prosecuted? Absolutely not. Should this video be shown to every A-10 pilot (and other close air support guys)? Yes. With a refresher before any action. It's a tough lesson paid for in bood. It's tragically similar to the one from the last war. Those A10 pilots should have learned from the first incident.

When you ask the question, and the available information indicates "friendly" and you still attack then you've got things very wrong. They were cautious about asking but their conclusions and actions were anything but cautious. They went through the motions, the judgement was lacking, and they saw what they wanted to see. To recognize a big patch of orange on a vehicle and still attack under those circumstances is another lesson in the falibility of humans. That orange should have been the ultimate red flag for these guys, were they sleeping when they briefed that? This is a repeat of the friendly fire from the previous Gulf War incident when A-10s attacked British armoured vehicles and one of the problems claimed back then was that they attacked from altitude with rockets instead of in a genuinely close air support role using their cannon as designed where they'd have a chance to visually identify the target. So it looks like here they've tried to address that problem and this pair saw the friendly forces marker ignore it then still didn't get adequate clearance from their forward controller. These guys would have been made acutely aware of the earlier friedly fire incident but still managed to duplicate that disaster. The whole system of communication and location seemed sloppy and vague, but it comes down to a bad decision to attack after inexplicably filtering out a key warning.

That's a Bio Air Tech wing right? Cool you don't see them every day. Definitely the most interesting design out there. What do you think of it?

Anti-chest hair

From an interview with Barish: "At that time, slope soaring, was just for fun. We didn’t know that it might be possible to soar in thermals or dynamic wind. We just pushed the sport as being a fun way to race downhill. We raced down the ski slopes, skimming the ground, rarely more than thirty metres up." Wow, couldn't have happened in 1965/1966!!!! I mean skydivers were still jumping rounds back then so the advent of anyone piloting anything cloth downhill must have been 40 years away.

I see this as much more of an issue of the details of what kind of flying you choose to optimize a canopy for, but maybe you have a point on the design side. Others did make that claim, and from here: http://www.jimslaton.com/index.html "Created new mountain sport " But I guess that could mean many things. Bottom line is he's done more for his sport than most of us ever will so kudos to him. I just like to remember where it all really started. The attached image of David Barish taken in 1965 may seem eerily familiar. Here's a bit of history you can find online "He [David Barish] tested his new wing shape by self-launching, and was so excited by its possibilities that he set off round the ski resorts of the USA demonstrating his newly found summer sport." WOW, a newfound summer sport in 1965!!! Meh, who gives a shit about history eh?