This is coolbert:
Here thanks to the SF Chronicle and the web site SF Gate, details of the negotiations, ongoing [?] between the central Afghan government of Karzai and parliamentarians of the Taliban.
Negotiations, however tenuous, at least a start to ending the war in Afghan with accommodation allowing for a settlement of some sort?
This all remains to be seen. American and NATO coalition forces allowing for SAFE PASSAGE of Taliban negotiators, on the traditional manner, safe passage a necessity for negotiations to even occur, much less be successful.
"Gen. Petraeus: Taliban get safe passage to talks"
"Commanding Gen. David Petraeus confirmed Friday that coalition forces have allowed Taliban representatives to travel to Kabul for peace discussions with the Afghan government, but a Taliban spokesman said all such talk is only propaganda, designed to lower the morale of the movement's fighters."
This is the way to solve the Afghan "problem". Negotiations leading to a cessation of hostilities, compromise on key issues leading to a truce, an armistice, and end to the war?
The traditional and tribal society of Afghan has NEVER had and probably will never abide a CENTRAL GOVERNMENT that rules with a heavy had, however well-intentioned. Authority and control exists at a decentralized level, always has, and this is perhaps for the best too.
Compromise and horse-trading, give and get are will achieve results that cannot be obtained on the battlefield?
The Taliban too are not a monolithic group, of only one mind-set. Factions do exist and can be exploited? Omar is not omnipotent? Are predominantly Pashtun and ARE not liked by the other racial and ethnic groups of Afghan, but in the proper context the various groups can get along?
This war is currently stalemated - - neither side able to prevail over the opposition - - not now and not for the foreseeable future. Negotiations allow for a resolution of the impasse! Karzai and the various Taliban leaders both realize this?
This makes sense if all interested parties proceed in good faith!! And that DOES remain to be seen!
coolbert.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Predator!
This is coolbert:
The military blog of Bert, "eclectic and free-ranging". Entries the material of which chosen from a wide variety of sources.
TO INCLUDE A COOKING SHOW!
I am watching just the other day on public broadcast television the cooking show of Andreas Viestad: "New Scandanavian Cooking". Andreas, Norwegian cook who specializes in regional recipes using locally obtained foods, meats such as cod and wild goose.
During this particular episode, Andreas is visiting the island of Svalbard land. Arctic wasteland of the far north, an island almost totally uninhabited, a population of only several thousand full time residents at most, an island barren and desolate.
Andreas travels inland, doing so ONLY WHEN ARMED WITH A HIGH POWER RIFLE! Anyone traveling AWAY from the areas of human habitation on Svalbard land MUST be armed in such a fashion. A military-style rifle of high-power [7.62 mm NATO or equivalent] to be carried anywhere and at ALL TIMES!
A rifle carried as protection against attack from polar bears.
The arctic north dangerous terrain to the human, and not just from the cold weather and treacherous conditions from the elements. Danger also to soldiers operating in the far north, the threat from wild animals as much a danger as the threat from an attacking enemy force.
There are few examples left of such danger as posed by wild animals to the soldier [sailor] on active military operations? [I am not thinking of insect bites causing disease such as yellow fever] I am thinking of wild animals stalking you, killing you, eating you!!
Modern day instances of predator attack obviously to include:
* The great white bear of the north. The polar bear. Voracious and perhaps most dangerous land predator that there is. Will attack with intent to kill and eat a human in an instant.
* The salt-water crocodile of southeast Asia, Indonesia, northern Australia. Again, a vicious and very capable predator, a known man-eater.
* Sharks! The World War Two [WW2] incident involving the USS Indianapolis instantly coming to mind. Sailors in the water, blood-flowing from wounds, sharks drawn from a distance - - men killed and eaten! Efforts to stave off shark attack only EXACERBATING THE SITUATION, MEN FLAILING IN THE WATER MIMICKING THE MOTIONS OF A DYING FISH!!
[the Greenland shark, normally a denizen of deeper waters of the Arctic, was observed feasting on the floating bodies of dead sailors, their ship sunk, during WW2, during the various Murmansk convoys. A shark taking advantage of a situation, an abundance of food at the surface!]
* Any of the traditional big-five game animals of Africa. Lion, leopard, rhinoceros, elephant, cape buffalo. Large and very dangerous animals, easily provoked, attacking almost at whim, often stalking and killing humans.
Comments:
* "Predator control" is an essential element of Arctic operations? A mission carried out by the Canadian Rangers, armed with the .303 British SMLE rifle, most recently during Nanook 09!
[incidentally - - nanook in the language of the Eskimo means polar bear!]
* The jury is still out on the World War Two era Ramree crocodile massacre? 1,000 or so Japanese troops killed and devoured by salt-water crocodiles in a single night! See too my previous blog entry on Sobek, the Nile crocodile-god!
* African big-game predators such as the lion and leopard can become accustomed to human flesh, scavenging the bodies of dead soldiers and developing a "taste" for people that places everyone in great danger. Such was the case of tigers in Vietnam devouring the bodies of North Vietnamese troops killed by B-52 strikes. Predators that normally flee a human now seek them [humans] out!
coolbert.
"eclectic and free-ranging"
The military blog of Bert, "eclectic and free-ranging". Entries the material of which chosen from a wide variety of sources.
TO INCLUDE A COOKING SHOW!
I am watching just the other day on public broadcast television the cooking show of Andreas Viestad: "New Scandanavian Cooking". Andreas, Norwegian cook who specializes in regional recipes using locally obtained foods, meats such as cod and wild goose.
During this particular episode, Andreas is visiting the island of Svalbard land. Arctic wasteland of the far north, an island almost totally uninhabited, a population of only several thousand full time residents at most, an island barren and desolate.
Andreas travels inland, doing so ONLY WHEN ARMED WITH A HIGH POWER RIFLE! Anyone traveling AWAY from the areas of human habitation on Svalbard land MUST be armed in such a fashion. A military-style rifle of high-power [7.62 mm NATO or equivalent] to be carried anywhere and at ALL TIMES!
A rifle carried as protection against attack from polar bears.
The arctic north dangerous terrain to the human, and not just from the cold weather and treacherous conditions from the elements. Danger also to soldiers operating in the far north, the threat from wild animals as much a danger as the threat from an attacking enemy force.
There are few examples left of such danger as posed by wild animals to the soldier [sailor] on active military operations? [I am not thinking of insect bites causing disease such as yellow fever] I am thinking of wild animals stalking you, killing you, eating you!!
Modern day instances of predator attack obviously to include:
* The great white bear of the north. The polar bear. Voracious and perhaps most dangerous land predator that there is. Will attack with intent to kill and eat a human in an instant.
* The salt-water crocodile of southeast Asia, Indonesia, northern Australia. Again, a vicious and very capable predator, a known man-eater.
* Sharks! The World War Two [WW2] incident involving the USS Indianapolis instantly coming to mind. Sailors in the water, blood-flowing from wounds, sharks drawn from a distance - - men killed and eaten! Efforts to stave off shark attack only EXACERBATING THE SITUATION, MEN FLAILING IN THE WATER MIMICKING THE MOTIONS OF A DYING FISH!!
[the Greenland shark, normally a denizen of deeper waters of the Arctic, was observed feasting on the floating bodies of dead sailors, their ship sunk, during WW2, during the various Murmansk convoys. A shark taking advantage of a situation, an abundance of food at the surface!]
* Any of the traditional big-five game animals of Africa. Lion, leopard, rhinoceros, elephant, cape buffalo. Large and very dangerous animals, easily provoked, attacking almost at whim, often stalking and killing humans.
Comments:
* "Predator control" is an essential element of Arctic operations? A mission carried out by the Canadian Rangers, armed with the .303 British SMLE rifle, most recently during Nanook 09!
[incidentally - - nanook in the language of the Eskimo means polar bear!]
* The jury is still out on the World War Two era Ramree crocodile massacre? 1,000 or so Japanese troops killed and devoured by salt-water crocodiles in a single night! See too my previous blog entry on Sobek, the Nile crocodile-god!
* African big-game predators such as the lion and leopard can become accustomed to human flesh, scavenging the bodies of dead soldiers and developing a "taste" for people that places everyone in great danger. Such was the case of tigers in Vietnam devouring the bodies of North Vietnamese troops killed by B-52 strikes. Predators that normally flee a human now seek them [humans] out!
coolbert.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Weapons!
This is coolbert:
From my previous blog entry "Long-Range":
"A possible alternative here is to use Dragunov sniper rifles as captured in Iraq? The Dragunov fires the same round [7.62 X 54R] as the PKM. U.S. units standardizing on Soviet weaponry?"
American and NATO forces in Afghan, fighting long-range gun battles with the Taliban, riflemen using the 5.56 mm round as fired from the M-16 or English SA-80 at a distinct disadvantage - - not able to successfully engage the enemy in fire fights occurring at distances in EXCESS of 500 meters!
My suggestion of course being that U.S. and NATO units could "standardize", adopt for use Soviet era weaponry and ammo available in apparent abundance - - captured in Iraq.
NOT unsurprisingly, the Taliban, for some time, using the SVD [Dragunov] sniper rifle and PKM machine gun during these gun duels, fire fights at extended range. The Taliban did not have a learning curve to follow. From long experience they already KNEW what worked in Afghan and what did not!
From a web site of Anthony G. Williams:
THE TALIBAN NOT ONLY KNOWING WHAT WEAPONS TO USE WHEN CONFRONTING U.S. AND NATO FORCES, BUT HOW TO EMPLOY THEM.
[the Taliban also having a compatibility of ammo between the Dragunov and the PKM. Both fire the old-fashioned but very lethal Russian 7.62 mm X 54R round! ]
Further, according to Williams:
And this is absolutely correct. Perhaps MOST gunfights of the era World War Two [WW2] occurred at a range of 200 meters or less. And riflemen almost never got a chance to fire a careful aimed shot over long distances. That was a RARE OCCURRENCE! VOLUME [quantity] of fire was considered to be important than quality [careful aimed shots]!
Additionally, the adoption of the 5.56 mm round enabled the average infantryman to carry twice the amount of ammunition for the same weight. This is obviously [?] an advantage?
I would be remiss in NOT mentioning that Dragunov was not only an excellent weapons designer but an OUTSTANDING COMPETITIVE MARKSMAN AS WELL! That SVD [Dragunov] rifle is a marvel!
[so much a marvel the importation of the SVD into the U.S. is banned!!]
I also recommend you go to the home page of Mr. Williams. An English author, military consultant and writer of some ability. Writes in the manner of Robert Heinlein - - alternative history, science-fiction etc.
coolbert.
"Fight the enemy with the weapons you have, and he does not" - - Suvorov.
From my previous blog entry "Long-Range":
"A possible alternative here is to use Dragunov sniper rifles as captured in Iraq? The Dragunov fires the same round [7.62 X 54R] as the PKM. U.S. units standardizing on Soviet weaponry?"
American and NATO forces in Afghan, fighting long-range gun battles with the Taliban, riflemen using the 5.56 mm round as fired from the M-16 or English SA-80 at a distinct disadvantage - - not able to successfully engage the enemy in fire fights occurring at distances in EXCESS of 500 meters!
My suggestion of course being that U.S. and NATO units could "standardize", adopt for use Soviet era weaponry and ammo available in apparent abundance - - captured in Iraq.
NOT unsurprisingly, the Taliban, for some time, using the SVD [Dragunov] sniper rifle and PKM machine gun during these gun duels, fire fights at extended range. The Taliban did not have a learning curve to follow. From long experience they already KNEW what worked in Afghan and what did not!
From a web site of Anthony G. Williams:
"The British and US Armies has also been finding the 5.56mm weapons to have insufficient range in the open spaces of Afghanistan, where foot patrols are engaged by small groups of Taliban, using 7.62x54R SVD rifles and PKM LMGs, at ranges of up to 900m"
THE TALIBAN NOT ONLY KNOWING WHAT WEAPONS TO USE WHEN CONFRONTING U.S. AND NATO FORCES, BUT HOW TO EMPLOY THEM.
[the Taliban also having a compatibility of ammo between the Dragunov and the PKM. Both fire the old-fashioned but very lethal Russian 7.62 mm X 54R round! ]
Further, according to Williams:
"The issue generating most complaints from
the British Army is the lack of effective range.
When the 5.56 mm cartridge was adopted,
combat experience in previous wars had established
that 90 per cent of all small-arms actions
took place within 300 m."
the British Army is the lack of effective range.
When the 5.56 mm cartridge was adopted,
combat experience in previous wars had established
that 90 per cent of all small-arms actions
took place within 300 m."
And this is absolutely correct. Perhaps MOST gunfights of the era World War Two [WW2] occurred at a range of 200 meters or less. And riflemen almost never got a chance to fire a careful aimed shot over long distances. That was a RARE OCCURRENCE! VOLUME [quantity] of fire was considered to be important than quality [careful aimed shots]!
Additionally, the adoption of the 5.56 mm round enabled the average infantryman to carry twice the amount of ammunition for the same weight. This is obviously [?] an advantage?
I would be remiss in NOT mentioning that Dragunov was not only an excellent weapons designer but an OUTSTANDING COMPETITIVE MARKSMAN AS WELL! That SVD [Dragunov] rifle is a marvel!
[so much a marvel the importation of the SVD into the U.S. is banned!!]
I also recommend you go to the home page of Mr. Williams. An English author, military consultant and writer of some ability. Writes in the manner of Robert Heinlein - - alternative history, science-fiction etc.
coolbert.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Three-star.
This is coolbert:
Here is the story of "three-star". Another Vietnam War hero wannabee.
NOT a total charlatan, but pretty close.
NOT being indicted for false claims of military valor but for FRAUD! Cheating and de-frauding the government for disability benefits:
"collecting in excess of $30,000 in disability payments in the last three years due to false combat claims;"
"Locals react to Hamilton indictment"
"Michael Delos Hamilton, 67, of Richlands, was indicted Thursday on four counts: giving false accounts to VA officials about top-secret exploits in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, during which he was injured multiple times and saw the deaths of many of his men"
Michael claimed to have been awarded a variety of medals for valor and heroism, all from Vietnam service [strictly TOP SECRET service too!!]:
* Two Navy Crosses.
* Three Silver Stars.
* Five Bronze Stars.
* Eight Purple Hearts.
Michael at least having performed some military service, not exactly during the Vietnam era however:
"Hamilton entered the Marine Corps July 18, 1961, and left the Corps as a private first class at Camp Lejeune on April 30, 1962, having never deployed. His only awards were a rifle qualification badge, good conduct medal and national defense service medal."
There is something wrong with the real military record of Michael? Normally an ordinary enlistment for the Marines has been four years. Michael did not even complete even ONE FULL YEAR OF SERVICE!! And too, being awarded the Good Conduct Medal normally means three continuous years of service without having received a courts martial conviction. Again, something wrong with what is purported to be the true record.
Michael too was not satisfied with the rank of Colonel. Saw himself as being a person of much higher stature. He wanted to be recognized as a "three-star" general, a Lieutenant General officer of formidable rank.
"Hamilton was sentenced to probation and $100 in fines in 2009 after altering his military ID card to represent himself as a three-star general"
Michael is a person with severe character difficulties and needs medication for mental problems?
There seems to be so many of these wannabee military types. NOW, as to MY last TOP SECRET mission during my active military service days. As I have said before, it involves chainsaws, stinging wasps the size of helicopters, an expedient rope bridge, a 1,000 foot deep chasm, and natives firing blow-gun darts. Other than that, I can say no more!
coolbert.
Here is the story of "three-star". Another Vietnam War hero wannabee.
NOT a total charlatan, but pretty close.
NOT being indicted for false claims of military valor but for FRAUD! Cheating and de-frauding the government for disability benefits:
"collecting in excess of $30,000 in disability payments in the last three years due to false combat claims;"
"Locals react to Hamilton indictment"
"Michael Delos Hamilton, 67, of Richlands, was indicted Thursday on four counts: giving false accounts to VA officials about top-secret exploits in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, during which he was injured multiple times and saw the deaths of many of his men"
Michael claimed to have been awarded a variety of medals for valor and heroism, all from Vietnam service [strictly TOP SECRET service too!!]:
* Two Navy Crosses.
* Three Silver Stars.
* Five Bronze Stars.
* Eight Purple Hearts.
Michael at least having performed some military service, not exactly during the Vietnam era however:
"Hamilton entered the Marine Corps July 18, 1961, and left the Corps as a private first class at Camp Lejeune on April 30, 1962, having never deployed. His only awards were a rifle qualification badge, good conduct medal and national defense service medal."
There is something wrong with the real military record of Michael? Normally an ordinary enlistment for the Marines has been four years. Michael did not even complete even ONE FULL YEAR OF SERVICE!! And too, being awarded the Good Conduct Medal normally means three continuous years of service without having received a courts martial conviction. Again, something wrong with what is purported to be the true record.
Michael too was not satisfied with the rank of Colonel. Saw himself as being a person of much higher stature. He wanted to be recognized as a "three-star" general, a Lieutenant General officer of formidable rank.
"Hamilton was sentenced to probation and $100 in fines in 2009 after altering his military ID card to represent himself as a three-star general"
Michael is a person with severe character difficulties and needs medication for mental problems?
There seems to be so many of these wannabee military types. NOW, as to MY last TOP SECRET mission during my active military service days. As I have said before, it involves chainsaws, stinging wasps the size of helicopters, an expedient rope bridge, a 1,000 foot deep chasm, and natives firing blow-gun darts. Other than that, I can say no more!
coolbert.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Torpedo Bomber I.
This is coolbert:
Torpedo bombers!
Attacking naval aviation, land-based or carrier-based, dropping aerial torpedoes against capital ships, torpedo bombers doing from the air what a submarine does from below the surface.
Those instances from the Second World War [WW2] of successful torpedo bomber attacks upon capital ships occurring under ONLY certain specific circumstances.
Instances of successful attack to include:
1. Taranto. Attack against moored warships in harbor.
2. Bismarck. Attack against capital ship not having friendly air cover.
3. Pearl Harbor. Attack against moored warships in harbor.
4. Repulse and Prince of Wales. Attack against capital ships not having friendly air cover.
5. Yamato. Attack against capital ship not having friendly air cover.
The torpedo bomber of the era [WW2] generally successful only when the "conditions were just right".
The torpedo bomber against much more robust, agile, and prepared opponents, NOT so successful.
WW2 instances of unsuccessful torpedo bomber attack against capital ships to include:
1. Battle of Rabaul.
2. Battle of Midway.
Torpedo bombers, heavy and somewhat ungainly aircraft when loaded with an aerial torpedo, not able to maneuver with alacrity when attacking, in particular too susceptible to shoot-down by combat air patrol [CAP].
* That group of Japanese torpedo planes so successful when attacking and sinking the Repulse and Prince of Wales uniformly UNSUCCESSFUL in combat against the American Lexington aircraft carrier battle group during the Battle of Rabaul.
"The Genzan Air Groups would attempt a torpedo attack on USS Lexington on 20 February 1942, losing seventeen aircraft to the carrier's combat air patrol and anti-aircraft guns"
* American torpedo bombers successfully attacking the Japanese battleship Yamato doing so as part of a coordinated attack in concert with dive bombers and strafing fighter escorts. Overwhelming numbers alone able to defeat the organic air defense of the Yamato!
[the concept WAS for a coordinated attack by all air elements simultaneously! Dive bombers, torpedo bombers, horizontal bombers, escort fighters acting in concert, as a team, again, coordinated, synergistic!!]
* To what extent torpedo bombers were successfully employed by the Japanese during the Indian Ocean Raid of 1942 is unclear.
Torpedo bombers when used in combat under the right circumstnaces were effective - - otherwise NOT so effective!
coolbert.
Torpedo bombers!
Attacking naval aviation, land-based or carrier-based, dropping aerial torpedoes against capital ships, torpedo bombers doing from the air what a submarine does from below the surface.
Those instances from the Second World War [WW2] of successful torpedo bomber attacks upon capital ships occurring under ONLY certain specific circumstances.
Instances of successful attack to include:
1. Taranto. Attack against moored warships in harbor.
2. Bismarck. Attack against capital ship not having friendly air cover.
3. Pearl Harbor. Attack against moored warships in harbor.
4. Repulse and Prince of Wales. Attack against capital ships not having friendly air cover.
5. Yamato. Attack against capital ship not having friendly air cover.
The torpedo bomber of the era [WW2] generally successful only when the "conditions were just right".
The torpedo bomber against much more robust, agile, and prepared opponents, NOT so successful.
WW2 instances of unsuccessful torpedo bomber attack against capital ships to include:
1. Battle of Rabaul.
2. Battle of Midway.
Torpedo bombers, heavy and somewhat ungainly aircraft when loaded with an aerial torpedo, not able to maneuver with alacrity when attacking, in particular too susceptible to shoot-down by combat air patrol [CAP].
* That group of Japanese torpedo planes so successful when attacking and sinking the Repulse and Prince of Wales uniformly UNSUCCESSFUL in combat against the American Lexington aircraft carrier battle group during the Battle of Rabaul.
"The Genzan Air Groups would attempt a torpedo attack on USS Lexington on 20 February 1942, losing seventeen aircraft to the carrier's combat air patrol and anti-aircraft guns"
* American torpedo bombers successfully attacking the Japanese battleship Yamato doing so as part of a coordinated attack in concert with dive bombers and strafing fighter escorts. Overwhelming numbers alone able to defeat the organic air defense of the Yamato!
[the concept WAS for a coordinated attack by all air elements simultaneously! Dive bombers, torpedo bombers, horizontal bombers, escort fighters acting in concert, as a team, again, coordinated, synergistic!!]
* To what extent torpedo bombers were successfully employed by the Japanese during the Indian Ocean Raid of 1942 is unclear.
Torpedo bombers when used in combat under the right circumstnaces were effective - - otherwise NOT so effective!
coolbert.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Phelps.
This is coolbert:
Let me weigh in on a major issue, a case being heard just today before the Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS].
A free-speech issue with a military dimension to it.
The person of Reverend Fred Phelps and his controversial behavior is at question here.
Phelps and the congregation of his church picketing, demonstrating at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghan. Phelps and his congregation voicing their apparent approval at the death of an American serviceman.
Odious, unwanted, and unwarranted behavior - - an egregious violation of all that is decent.
From a legal standpoint, under CRIMINAL LAW - - constitutionally protected free speech. Phelps and his congregation - - gadflies, nonetheless, behavior, however provocative - - protected.
"gad·fly - – noun, plural -flies. 2. a person [presence unwanted] who persistently annoys or provokes others"
Phelps having lost A CIVIL JUDGMENT for $5 million [the original decision reversed in favor of Phelps], the litigant appealing all the way to the Supreme Court.
This case is a major news item today. And will remain so for some time I would have to think.
Some observations about the Reverend Phelps: [this all needs to be made abundantly clear!!]
* The "church" of Phelps is his home, his abode, his place of residence, and nothing more!
* The "congregation" of Phelps is himself and his immediate family members, and no one else!
I am not even sure if Reverend Phelps is an ordained minister or anything of the sort. He is what is called a "lay preacher" without significant credentials, no divinity degree or graduation from a seminary?
[he is reputed to in his youth to have attended Bob Jones University?]
Reverend Phelps is NOT a "reverend" or is the "pastor" of a "church" or has a "congregation" as those terms are normally, generally, ordinarily, and commonly understood!!
I might even so far as to suggest that Reverend Phelps and his "congregation" are FALSE FLAG! Something is just not right here with this bunch. Creating controversy and stirring up trouble to make OTHERS look bad?
"While false flag operations originate in warfare and government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as businesses, special interest groups, religions, political ideologies and campaigns for office."
We have not heard the last of Phelps and his "congregants", regardless of how the Supreme Court rules! I fear this is so!
coolbert.
Let me weigh in on a major issue, a case being heard just today before the Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS].
A free-speech issue with a military dimension to it.
The person of Reverend Fred Phelps and his controversial behavior is at question here.
Phelps and the congregation of his church picketing, demonstrating at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghan. Phelps and his congregation voicing their apparent approval at the death of an American serviceman.
Odious, unwanted, and unwarranted behavior - - an egregious violation of all that is decent.
From a legal standpoint, under CRIMINAL LAW - - constitutionally protected free speech. Phelps and his congregation - - gadflies, nonetheless, behavior, however provocative - - protected.
"gad·fly - – noun, plural -flies. 2. a person [presence unwanted] who persistently annoys or provokes others"
Phelps having lost A CIVIL JUDGMENT for $5 million [the original decision reversed in favor of Phelps], the litigant appealing all the way to the Supreme Court.
This case is a major news item today. And will remain so for some time I would have to think.
Some observations about the Reverend Phelps: [this all needs to be made abundantly clear!!]
* The "church" of Phelps is his home, his abode, his place of residence, and nothing more!
* The "congregation" of Phelps is himself and his immediate family members, and no one else!
I am not even sure if Reverend Phelps is an ordained minister or anything of the sort. He is what is called a "lay preacher" without significant credentials, no divinity degree or graduation from a seminary?
[he is reputed to in his youth to have attended Bob Jones University?]
Reverend Phelps is NOT a "reverend" or is the "pastor" of a "church" or has a "congregation" as those terms are normally, generally, ordinarily, and commonly understood!!
I might even so far as to suggest that Reverend Phelps and his "congregation" are FALSE FLAG! Something is just not right here with this bunch. Creating controversy and stirring up trouble to make OTHERS look bad?
"While false flag operations originate in warfare and government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as businesses, special interest groups, religions, political ideologies and campaigns for office."
We have not heard the last of Phelps and his "congregants", regardless of how the Supreme Court rules! I fear this is so!
coolbert.
Appleseed.
This is coolbert:
Here with an article, American infantry being instructed in the art of long-range rifle shooting. The Appleseed civilian shootist project at work!
This from only this last August, very recent. Troops in preparation [?] for deployment to Afghan, their marksmanship being stressed, techniques and methods for successfully engaging a fleeting enemy at long-range being taught!
American infantry, firing the M-16 .223 caliber rifle, NOT accustomed to firing at long-distances with carefully aimed and accurate shots. That M-16 rifle even not really capable of accurate shooting at such range?
[knock-down and "stopping power" of the .223 round at long-distance also questionable!]
"Most Soldiers learn how to shoot at maximum distances of 300 meters. Soldiers in the four-day course shoot at 400- and 500-meter targets."
“'(This helps) familiarize Soldiers with long-distance shooting,' . . . 'We are engaging targets up to 500 meters with just standard weapons. Nearly all the engagements that occur in Afghanistan are at 500 meters and beyond, so it’s important to be accurate.'”
"To help improve marksmanship, Soldiers learned how to shoot without being supported by any sandbags or rocks, just your weapon’s sling for support. Soldiers also learned how to analyze the shot and how to shoot."
The use of the sling as a "support" an integral element of Appleseed "doctrine" and instruction!
Read it all! Hooray Appleseed and good hunting Tenth Mountain!
coolbert.
“in Afghanistan (most of the) engagements are long distance,”
Here with an article, American infantry being instructed in the art of long-range rifle shooting. The Appleseed civilian shootist project at work!
This from only this last August, very recent. Troops in preparation [?] for deployment to Afghan, their marksmanship being stressed, techniques and methods for successfully engaging a fleeting enemy at long-range being taught!
American infantry, firing the M-16 .223 caliber rifle, NOT accustomed to firing at long-distances with carefully aimed and accurate shots. That M-16 rifle even not really capable of accurate shooting at such range?
[knock-down and "stopping power" of the .223 round at long-distance also questionable!]
"Most Soldiers learn how to shoot at maximum distances of 300 meters. Soldiers in the four-day course shoot at 400- and 500-meter targets."
“'(This helps) familiarize Soldiers with long-distance shooting,' . . . 'We are engaging targets up to 500 meters with just standard weapons. Nearly all the engagements that occur in Afghanistan are at 500 meters and beyond, so it’s important to be accurate.'”
"To help improve marksmanship, Soldiers learned how to shoot without being supported by any sandbags or rocks, just your weapon’s sling for support. Soldiers also learned how to analyze the shot and how to shoot."
The use of the sling as a "support" an integral element of Appleseed "doctrine" and instruction!
Read it all! Hooray Appleseed and good hunting Tenth Mountain!
coolbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
