<No, Bowser. Contrary to your constant sensationalizing of the facts, allies and civilians were not, and are not, our main targets.

Dan, sometimes I wonder. I'm remembering back to the posts wherein you labeled all Palestinians as combatants. And your memory of that differs.





“Try to stay with what was said.”

I believe what I said about the accidental bombings and shootings was that each had an explanation, and in the aggregate they were terrible. That while each of them might be able to be excused, by us, over time the repeated incidents were going to create a lot of hate.

Nice to know you believe in something -- and thank you for adding that innocuous little word, “accidental”.

Now if you could just get past the "failure" part.

(It's interesting the pilot is being left out to dry in the Canadian incident. The Afghans don't have enough clout to force an investigation of the type the Canadians got.)

The pilot was wrong -- dead wrong. He had been briefed on allied locations, and this bombed site was one of them. Skittish majors at the controls of a machine with the potential to kill thousands is called “no excuse.” Now, if you wish to call being tried for a blatant error that caused lives being “hung out to dry”, I think you need serious help.

Sorry about the collateral damage you insist on whining over, again and again and again, but this is what is what happens in war.

Now you can go on about how I just said everybody should get off scot-free. I’m sure that’s somewhere between those lines I just wrote. Let me get real close to the screen so I can check.

Mm-m, dunno. Is it there?

I’m under the impression that you think every single investigation in the world should be held up to public scrutiny. Well, you can rest assured, now. As soon as the media gets wind of the ongoing investigations, by the U.S. government, by the Allied Coalition Forces, and by the UN, each trying to dig up dirt on atrocities performed in the name of liberty in the sacred sands of Afghanistan, I’m sure you’ll be the first one they’ll call.

I didn't say civilians were the main targets. Where you get those things is beyond me.

Well -- I can read.

In re to the Afghan invasion, I said the Taliban was replaced, and that was about it. Terrorism is still a threat. Al Qaeda still exists. And OBL may well be dead, but most folks don't think so. (Even if he is, so what. There's another one behind him. And if I could "show" him to you, I'd take my $25 million and be gone for a while. But, you could show me his body, and you can have the bucks.)

Now, can you remember when you actually wrote, “It's been easy to see that OBL is still out there, terrorism is still a threat, we bombed allies and civilians a bunch, and not much else seemed to occur.” You can dance around this as well, but I seem to recall a hell of a lot more going on at the time. And terrorism is not going away. It will always be a threat. It’s been that way since the invention of sibling rivalry, and so long as more than one person lives on the face of this Earth, it ain’t goin’ nowhere. As long as someone wants to hurt someone else, terror tactics will be employed.

Now, did you know that the war is NOT against terrorism? No, no. It’s against GLOBAL, or INTERNATIONAL terrorism. The network of al-Qai’da has been crippled. It’s not dead, but it is in a world of hurt right now. Small victories are still victories, and as they multiply, that victory grows.

Now, you can go ahead and insist the whole thing has been a failure, and that’s fine with me -- but expect to be countered.

The Brits reporting actions which didn't occur is a symptom of the situation. When you don't capture or kill the enemy, when they dissolve and reconstitute themselves, all the while remaining a threat, when your commanders in the field are pressured to report victories and no casualties, you've got a screwy situation.

Duh!

I think they call that stuff guerrilla warfare -- something like that.

When someone admits the situation, I call it "candor". You call it "victory".

Someone admitted something here? Funny. I thought it was all media hype from some pain in the ass keyboard-jockey who hates writing in a dusty tent so far from the nearest pub, who happens to now have a big ol’ axe to grind against his own nation, and even has an editor who doesn’t seem to mind so much, all for the sake of that holy buck -- sorry -- the holy quid.

And apparently Britain agrees. They cut their losses (tax losses more than anything else), but what the hell... It’s not like the UK was ever attacked by al-Qai’da, and their departure was of their own choosing.

An admission?

Stars and Stripes, the US forces' paper criticised the Royal Marines for returning empty-handed and called Britain's contribution disappointing. A defence official in London said: "We are not getting terribly worked up."

Apathetically speaking, far from.

Dan