Monday, January 08, 2007
I SAAAAAAAIIIIID, We Got C-130 Freakin' Helicopters!!!!!! (Part Deux)
Reuters is reporting that the U.S. Air Force has struck at Al Qaeda militants in Somalia with
[drum roll, please...]
...An AC-130 Helicopter Gunship!!!!
The Washington Post lets that howler over their wires.
NBC avoids the helicopter howler, but restates CBS's original error on rates of fire. Which tells you that these outlets aren't doublechecking shit, but plagiarizing each other's bonehead plays (without attribution).
Toronto corrects the Reuters blunder.
The news agencies are covering their tracks as we speak, so if someone out there knows how to do screencaps I'd be much obliged.
Flashback: The morons at the Guardian still have an account of the AC-130 helicopter gunship attack on the wedding party, more than two years later.
Flashback: "I SAAAAAAAIIIID, we got C-130 Freakin' Helicopters!!!!!"
Splash, out
Jason
[drum roll, please...]
...An AC-130 Helicopter Gunship!!!!
The Washington Post lets that howler over their wires.
NBC avoids the helicopter howler, but restates CBS's original error on rates of fire. Which tells you that these outlets aren't doublechecking shit, but plagiarizing each other's bonehead plays (without attribution).
Toronto corrects the Reuters blunder.
The news agencies are covering their tracks as we speak, so if someone out there knows how to do screencaps I'd be much obliged.
Flashback: The morons at the Guardian still have an account of the AC-130 helicopter gunship attack on the wedding party, more than two years later.
Flashback: "I SAAAAAAAIIIID, we got C-130 Freakin' Helicopters!!!!!"
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Alt+Print Screen will copy the active window so you can paste it into another document.
Ctrl+Print Screen will capture the entire desktop.
I used these features very often once upon a time when I was re-writing software user guides and documenting procedures for systems software customers.
Ctrl+Print Screen will capture the entire desktop.
I used these features very often once upon a time when I was re-writing software user guides and documenting procedures for systems software customers.
I can remember where I was: England AFB, LA.
I can remember what I was doing: flying Hogs in the 23rd Fighter Wing ("Flying Tigers"--you may have heard of them).
I can remember where I saw it: local paper after coming home from work.
I can remember the byline: Anthony Lewis, New York Times.
...but...for the life of me, I can't find it anywhere on the Web (yet).
It was another in a long series of screeds by Tony protesting the warmongering Reagan Administration's insistance that we rebuild our military, needlessly provoking the freedom loving peoples of the Soviet Union and wasting billions on systems that would provide only a fraction of a return on the investment. Why, asked Anthony, should we not instead (if we MUST) buy more of the simpler, cheaper, propeller-driven A-10s, for example?
Say what? Ummmm.....no.
OK. The TF-34 may be a high-bypass fan engine--most of the air that goes in the front and comes out the back doesn't actually go through the combustion chamber--but it ain't THAT high-bypass, dude.
This was around 1982, or so.
Things have gotten worse.
Thank God for the blogs. Otherwise, this stuff would pass unchallenged. People may say that newspapers offer us "the first rough draft of history" but I think it gives these rags WAY too much credit. The first rough draft of a Tom Robbins/Susan Sarandon off-Broadway play maybe, but not history.
I can remember what I was doing: flying Hogs in the 23rd Fighter Wing ("Flying Tigers"--you may have heard of them).
I can remember where I saw it: local paper after coming home from work.
I can remember the byline: Anthony Lewis, New York Times.
...but...for the life of me, I can't find it anywhere on the Web (yet).
It was another in a long series of screeds by Tony protesting the warmongering Reagan Administration's insistance that we rebuild our military, needlessly provoking the freedom loving peoples of the Soviet Union and wasting billions on systems that would provide only a fraction of a return on the investment. Why, asked Anthony, should we not instead (if we MUST) buy more of the simpler, cheaper, propeller-driven A-10s, for example?
Say what? Ummmm.....no.
OK. The TF-34 may be a high-bypass fan engine--most of the air that goes in the front and comes out the back doesn't actually go through the combustion chamber--but it ain't THAT high-bypass, dude.
This was around 1982, or so.
Things have gotten worse.
Thank God for the blogs. Otherwise, this stuff would pass unchallenged. People may say that newspapers offer us "the first rough draft of history" but I think it gives these rags WAY too much credit. The first rough draft of a Tom Robbins/Susan Sarandon off-Broadway play maybe, but not history.
Print Scrn alone will copy the entire screen. Paste it into your favorite WP document or graphics editing program.
I'm waiting for the inevitable followup party massacre story, which is now as ubiquitous as the bus plunge story.
Somali court official Hamil Jussein today indicated that the Somali casualties were members of a wedding party. The U.S. Air Force [furtively] claimed that the AC-130 scramjet gunship was taking ground fire from anti-aircraft weapons. However, Professor Huan Cole, an expert in Persian Rugs and Soviet Armament, said "it's quite normal for Somalis to fire 57mm quad mount guns into the air at weddings, along with 73mm flak guns and some smaller versions of the SAM missile system. They call it 'happy fire', a phenomenon that is relatively unknown to right wing U.S. gun toting would-be hegemons, so to speak." U.S. are believed to have shot exploding White Phosphorous chemical bullets at the wedding party, but could not be reached to confirm this story, in spite of verification calls we made to the Army Recruiting Hotline, the Salvation Army, and the office of former member of Congress Dick Armey.
Okay, so I exaggerate. But not that much.
Somali court official Hamil Jussein today indicated that the Somali casualties were members of a wedding party. The U.S. Air Force [furtively] claimed that the AC-130 scramjet gunship was taking ground fire from anti-aircraft weapons. However, Professor Huan Cole, an expert in Persian Rugs and Soviet Armament, said "it's quite normal for Somalis to fire 57mm quad mount guns into the air at weddings, along with 73mm flak guns and some smaller versions of the SAM missile system. They call it 'happy fire', a phenomenon that is relatively unknown to right wing U.S. gun toting would-be hegemons, so to speak." U.S. are believed to have shot exploding White Phosphorous chemical bullets at the wedding party, but could not be reached to confirm this story, in spite of verification calls we made to the Army Recruiting Hotline, the Salvation Army, and the office of former member of Congress Dick Armey.
Okay, so I exaggerate. But not that much.
Not everyone has covered their tracks. Google Fox and AC-130. Oh wait - Fox news gets a pass on this too huh?
Well, you don't mention or quote them, as you do AP, Reuters, the NY Times, the LA Times, The Washington Post, and so forth. Thats what I mean by a pass, not that you post explicitly that you're OK with Fox making that mistake.
It's a shame, because if one network has invested capital in making pro war people believe they are fair, it's Fox news. A camapign to get them to hire more newsroom veterens might actually work. Who knows, they might start reporting instead of respinning AP with the occassional celebrity interview thrown in. Maybe the NY Times would be embarrassed enough to do something different then.
It's a shame, because if one network has invested capital in making pro war people believe they are fair, it's Fox news. A camapign to get them to hire more newsroom veterens might actually work. Who knows, they might start reporting instead of respinning AP with the occassional celebrity interview thrown in. Maybe the NY Times would be embarrassed enough to do something different then.
I don't mean you quoted them all just now, but that you do quote them when they make errors about military facts.
It's a shame, because if one network has invested capital in making pro war people believe they are fair, it's Fox news.
- So, investing capital in having your viewers believe you are fair is a bad thing? Most of the MSM doesn't even bother--or at least it appears that way.
NOTE: No professional soldier, sailor, airman or Marine is "pro war." It's bad for our health. We are however, pro defense that sometimes involves the aggressive and violent application of force. Admittedly, we were eager to answer the attack on our territory that took more civilian, non-combatant lives in one day than in any time in our nation's 200+ year history.
A camapign [sic] to get them to hire more newsroom veterens [sic] might actually work.
Work at what? They have plenty of *newsroom* vets. What the others need are some *military* vets. Fox actually hires Veterans, which makes for slightly less rediculous reporting on the war (Geraldo notwithstanding).
Who knows, they might start reporting instead of respinning AP with the occassional celebrity interview thrown in.
"Respinniing AP"? Really? Must have missed that. As far as "celebrity interviews" are concerned, I think NBC has that pretty well nailed. They have such paragons of unbiased reporting and comment as, oh, Chris Matthews who had Matt Damon on to answer questions like, "So, would you like to waterboard Dick Cheney to see if his answers would be any different?" I paraphrase slightly, but it illustrates the concept, with the additional plus of suggesting the Vice President of the United States should be tortured.
Maybe the NY Times would be embarrassed enough to do something different then.
Dude. The NYT has proven time and again it CAN'T BE embarrassed. Ever hear of Eason Jordon? How about the exposing of demonstrably successful financial transaction monitoring of al-Qaida OUTSIDE the US (...AND briefed to Congress AND independantly audited to make sure only terrorist-related transactions were targeted)? Leaking classified briefings by Gen Casey on troop levels in Iraq last June? The list goes on. It's about as easy as shaming a crack dealer out of work.
To quote blogger George Ratton: "Forget about National Security...get a Pulitzer! Cash in and get even!"
- So, investing capital in having your viewers believe you are fair is a bad thing? Most of the MSM doesn't even bother--or at least it appears that way.
NOTE: No professional soldier, sailor, airman or Marine is "pro war." It's bad for our health. We are however, pro defense that sometimes involves the aggressive and violent application of force. Admittedly, we were eager to answer the attack on our territory that took more civilian, non-combatant lives in one day than in any time in our nation's 200+ year history.
A camapign [sic] to get them to hire more newsroom veterens [sic] might actually work.
Work at what? They have plenty of *newsroom* vets. What the others need are some *military* vets. Fox actually hires Veterans, which makes for slightly less rediculous reporting on the war (Geraldo notwithstanding).
Who knows, they might start reporting instead of respinning AP with the occassional celebrity interview thrown in.
"Respinniing AP"? Really? Must have missed that. As far as "celebrity interviews" are concerned, I think NBC has that pretty well nailed. They have such paragons of unbiased reporting and comment as, oh, Chris Matthews who had Matt Damon on to answer questions like, "So, would you like to waterboard Dick Cheney to see if his answers would be any different?" I paraphrase slightly, but it illustrates the concept, with the additional plus of suggesting the Vice President of the United States should be tortured.
Maybe the NY Times would be embarrassed enough to do something different then.
Dude. The NYT has proven time and again it CAN'T BE embarrassed. Ever hear of Eason Jordon? How about the exposing of demonstrably successful financial transaction monitoring of al-Qaida OUTSIDE the US (...AND briefed to Congress AND independantly audited to make sure only terrorist-related transactions were targeted)? Leaking classified briefings by Gen Casey on troop levels in Iraq last June? The list goes on. It's about as easy as shaming a crack dealer out of work.
To quote blogger George Ratton: "Forget about National Security...get a Pulitzer! Cash in and get even!"
Well, Eason Jordan was CNN, not NY Times, but I get your point.
I'm still trying to figure out how this guy made the logical leap from me not quoting or linking to Fox News to me tacitly endorsing the network.
Talk about a disconnect from reason!!!!
How often do I really link Fox, anyway? I mean, I don't even own a TV and never watch TV. Why would I bother.
But these people are constantly trying to project their own biases onto others (e.g., "All pro-victory people are Fox News automatons" - a moronic postulate to begin with), and then we see the result here.
I'm still trying to figure out how this guy made the logical leap from me not quoting or linking to Fox News to me tacitly endorsing the network.
Talk about a disconnect from reason!!!!
How often do I really link Fox, anyway? I mean, I don't even own a TV and never watch TV. Why would I bother.
But these people are constantly trying to project their own biases onto others (e.g., "All pro-victory people are Fox News automatons" - a moronic postulate to begin with), and then we see the result here.
Yeah, sorry about that...should have checked first on Jordan.
I was confused, too. His shot came out of nowhere and the "maybe they'll (the NYT usual suspects) learn from your taking Fox to task" meme was just weird. I wasn't quite sure where he was going so I just assumed that meme and went from there.
BTW, using Dick Durbin as a responder to the Prez was either tone deaf or contemptuous (of both the Administration and the military). Can't figure out which; probably a little of both.
I wish to God the Administration's IW campaign (an oxymoron of there ever was one) would kick into high gear with quotes/YouTube outtakes of Durbin's, Kerry's and Kennedy's more outlandish utterances and start playing them at whatever venues reach the most independent voters, to say nothing of the average citizen.
Whether or not the surge is a good idea remains to be seen but at least making an attempt to explain/sell it to the public HAS to be better than what's gone on to date (for any wartime moves they make). Argghhh!!
Post a Comment
I was confused, too. His shot came out of nowhere and the "maybe they'll (the NYT usual suspects) learn from your taking Fox to task" meme was just weird. I wasn't quite sure where he was going so I just assumed that meme and went from there.
BTW, using Dick Durbin as a responder to the Prez was either tone deaf or contemptuous (of both the Administration and the military). Can't figure out which; probably a little of both.
I wish to God the Administration's IW campaign (an oxymoron of there ever was one) would kick into high gear with quotes/YouTube outtakes of Durbin's, Kerry's and Kennedy's more outlandish utterances and start playing them at whatever venues reach the most independent voters, to say nothing of the average citizen.
Whether or not the surge is a good idea remains to be seen but at least making an attempt to explain/sell it to the public HAS to be better than what's gone on to date (for any wartime moves they make). Argghhh!!
