JohnB

The M825 A1 is not a smoke grenade. It is a 155mm artillery shell and is not (generally) an incendiary device. From Global Security; As can be seen there are three types of shell. The burster type is the incendiary version. The smoke from HC shells only lasts for 90 seconds which means without continuous bombardment, their use is short lived, whereas the M825 A1 smoke lasts for some minutes. Assuming that what we are seeing in the picture is in fact an M825 A1, then the ferocious looking lights are actually pieces of felt. BTW, the description of the M825 A1 round clearly shows that Article I of Protocol III does not apply as the weapon is not; AI in the first link complain about the damage caused by the spent casings, however, if the Israelis were to use HC smoke projectiles, they would have to fire at least three times as many shells causing three times as much damage from casings. So no matter what, AI will be upset with the Israelis, won't it? From the Guardian story; Shock and horror. They found bomb fragments after airstrikes in a war zone. Sheesh. From a 2000 MIAC Journal article; Can we have some perspective here? In short. The weapon is not banned and it's use contravenes no treaty. And something is not a war crime just because AI says it is. AI can object to the use of the M825 shell in certain situations, that is fair enough, but doing something AI objects to is not a crime or a war crime.

I'm not talking wrong or right, merely noting that it was common for the previous President to be lampooned in this way without major outcry. I'm commenting on the reactions rather than the cartoon. Considering the incredible partisanship in US politics, I find this sort of thing fascinating. I'm curious how similar incidents will play out in the future. I think john5746 chipped it, it's a cultural thing in the US. Lacking the cultural background I don't understand why it's deemed insulting. It's a political cartoon, it's meant to be insulting to somebody. You might to watch that, it's amazing what people can be "sensitive" to if it shuts up their opposition. Personally, when it comes to political satire and lampooning I go with bascule;

I don't get the cartoon either. I had put it down as a cultural thing but now I'm not so sure. Someone over there should have got the joke, shouldn't they? This little tidbit has made the news down here, but is being subtly painted in a different light. Those protesting against the paper seem more upset that someone has poked fun at their new messiah than anything else. Bush was often compared to a monkey, it's been all over the net for years, yet to use the same image for Obama is taboo? Is comparing the current Prsident to a chimp bad? Or is it the idea of dissing the current President that is wrong? The lasting impression is that it's the latter. (I'm not saying it's true, just that it's the impression being given) TBH, while Mr Obama may be a good President, from the outside the Presidency is starting to smell a lot like a "Cult of Personality", which is causing some of to wonder what will happen when he fails to walk on water.

From the POV of an outsider who is still trying to understand he system you have; 2 parties is not enough. As to how many there should be, as many as form. However I don't think you can have more parties while holding to the First Past the Post voting system. The current two parties control too much of the vote under this system for smaller parties to have a chance. I've always thought FPTP is the most undemocratic system in a multi party electorate. Why just the President? We use it for all elections and the smaller parties get a fair shot. The downside is that a small party can then control the balance of power in a Parliment which can have complications. TBH though, it hasn't been too much of a problem, if they make too much of a nuisance of themselves, they don't last long. bascule, a plus of the system is that bible thumping homophobes will believe in the "RIGHTNESS OF THEIR CAUSE" (you know what they're like:rolleyes:) so much that they will happily split from the major parties of their own accord to form their own little party. (Firmly convinced that they will be swept into power at the next election) Everybody now knows who they are and they tend to dwindle away into obscurity and die. Just my 2c

iNow, thanks for that. Your system is sooo different from ours. It's sometimes hard to get my head around what's going on. bascule, apologies. The first version of the post mentioned how your system was confusing me. I deleted the section but posted thinking it was still in. No, I'm trying to understand why the Members of Congress seem to get a free ride. Example; POTUS introduces Bill 1234, Lower House passes Bill 1234. Senate greatly modifies Bill 1234 and sends it to Lower House. Lower House passes modifications and sends to POTUS. POTUS signs Bill 1234 into law. It all goes pear shaped. POTUS is blamed. That's the bit I don't get. Why don't the Congressmen who voted for the Bill get blamed too? It doesn't matter which side the POTUS comes from, it's always "Bush did this" or "Clinton did that". Yet every bad decision they passed into law must have been approved by Congress, so why is this not generally mentioned? What was "The Bush Administration"? Down here we would say "The Rudd Government" in the same fashion. By this we mean the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd (Oh God, how on earth did we elect a man called "Kevin" to run our country?), all his Ministers of State and every politician (from both Houses) whose vote counts towards his party. Consequently every polly that votes for a Bill has to explain him/herself to the electorate as they all share the blame equally. It doesn't look like yours does this. You guys grew up with it, so I'm sure your system looks simple and logical to you, but from the outside things aren't quite so clear cut. I suppose this is another difference. Such actions here would be done by "The Treasurer", an elected Member of Parliment. (Actually the spot is second only to the position of PM.) This appears to be an attitudinal difference. Cries of "It's not my fault! I trusted him and he cheated" would be met here with "You're supposed to be more careful than that. Your arse is ours come election time, sonny." Could Americans please note, I'm not having a dig at your system, just trying to understand it.

Help me out here. The person who was tasked to value the banks stuffed up the valuation and the US gov then gave the banks too much money. This equals "Bush did it"? All the billions were given on the personal order of the POTUS? Didn't Congress have to approve the spending? If Congress did approve the money, how does it become Bush's fault? Is this some bizarre twist of the US system? Regardless of who is POTUS all decisions during his term are his fault. (Or at least this is how you yanks portray it to the ROW.) Since everything is the fault of the POTUS, why do you bother having the Congress? Or is this a US thing where you just tend to blame the POTUS for everything, whether or not he had anything to do with it?

Wouldn't that indicate that having the Federal Reserve has made no difference? If this is the case, why not remove the drain on your economy? Don't forget that your system is very different from our "Reserve Bank" system, so I'm sort of asking from ignorance.

tvp45, I've always seen it written as; "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist....." "Shoot straight you bastards" Lieutenant Harry "Breaker" Morant 1902

One can politely say Bulldust. Unless "near the same location" means "on the same bloody continent". Emerald and points north (where the flooding is) is some 600 klicks north of me and Newcastle (where the earthquake was in 1989) is around 650 klicks to the south. On this basis, London is "near the same location" as Prague. So that means that there were stronger storms prior to 1945. Ooh, a "Super Typhoon". Not really, it was forcast to hit cat 5 but by the time it made landfall, it had downgraded to "severe tropical storm". Also, as SH3LOCK points out, records aren't the best 100+ years ago and it's doubtful a meaningful comparison can be made. iNow, there may be a discussion here, but not if it starts with bulldust.

Interesting post SL. Although I had always been under the impression the H Sapiens left Africa circa 100,000 years ago. Actually, the end of the Clovis culture appears to be linked to a mass extinction. From a recent PNAS abstract; Recent dating puts Mungo Man at circa 40,000 years ago. This puts him 10,000 years after the extinction event. Also the Australian record is not as clear cut as you might think. From a 2005 ENS article.; I believe your conclusion is incorrect, or at least not fully supported by the evidence.

Considering that the second one is a Science Daily article about an apparent oped column in American Scientist, would you care to reconsider that? I also find this a little interesting; Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the last century. For the first part, how long have the islands been colonised? Tonga and Samoa were colonised some 3,000 years ago. For the birds to become extinct, they were almost certainly non-migratory and confined to a single island or small group of islands. (Which means that a good cyclone or tsunami could cause their extinction as well) Anyway, saying "2,000 species of localised bird populations have disappeared in the Pacific over the last 3,000 years" is a more accurate statement, but it just doesn't have the same apocalyptic ring, does it? For the second part. Just because an animal has "vanished" from America doesn't mean it's extinct, just that it's no longer found in North America. 20 out of 297 mussel species sounds impressive (it's nearly 10%!), but is it? Redlist says there are an estimated 81,000 species of molluscs, so 20 of them "vanishing" from North America is far less than a drop in a bucket. 40 of 950 fish is circa 4%, yet the same Redlist table shows that worldwide only 4% are threatened, not extinct, not vulnerable, but threatened. Swansont, just to be clear. Yes, it is obvious that the spread of man has led to extictions, I can't see how there can be any argument about that. Some of those extinctions were unintentional (we didn't care), some were accidental (we didn't intend to hunt them to extinction) and some were deliberate (islands can be a bit small for both humans and tigers). However I've yet to see anything that provides a factual basis for the doom and gloom predictions. We can all play with numbers. I could claim (and use Redlist to back me up) that "56% of evaluated species of Arachnids are threatened!" I mean, My God, that's horrific. Until that is, someone actually looks at the figures and sees that of an estimated 98,000 species of Arachnid, only 32 have been "evaluated". Those 18 threatened species are suddenly an insignificant minority. As an aside, I think their coral figures are odd. Not saying they're wrong, but I'd love to know how the number of threatened species goes from 1 in 2006 to 4 in 2007, to a whopping 235 in 2008. Just seems odd. Mokele, thanks for the links. I've give them a read. Is this confirmed? I knew that overhunting was "a" theory for the megafauna extinctions, but I didn't know that we had evidence. I must admit, I've always had trouble with the idea that the Australian Aboriginal, armed wih a fire hardened stick, hunted the Megalania to extinction.

That's because he's retired.

Yes, they do. And I generally have no problem with this. Here we have an extrapolation from an incomplete record compared to an extrapolation from an incomplete record followed by a declaration of disaster. No, the claim is that we are in the midst of the "Sixth Great Extinction". I find that claim extraordinary. specifically that this "Great Extinction" is on par with those known from the records. I'm asking for proof. So far all that has been presented is extrapolation and guesswork. Such things are not evidence. If I were to extrapolate the number of asteroids we haven't seen and combined that with an extrapolation of the number that hit us each year that we don't know about and from this conclude that we will be wiped out in the next 50 to 100 years, would you accept the conclusion? Of course not. You would ask for proof. Just as I am doing.

The problem is here. Lumping things together doesn't work. Ghost hunters aren't required to be religious, yet for some strange reason they all get lumped together. Part of the problem is the word "Supernatural", I think. It is often given religious overtones it doesn't warrant. You can be an atheist and still believe in a supernatural entity. In that case, supernatural simply means that we can't detect or understand it yet. "Supernatural" evolves. Today we put food into a box and it comes out hot, 200 years ago that would be supernatural. Perhaps this is the area of discord between the groups. Acceptance of the "Supernatural" requires the belief that current understanding of the Universe falls far short of what there is to know. That there are great principles yet to be discovered. To make it worse, sometimes we can see it, but we can't understand it. It's like an 8 year old can see a book on atomic physics, but can't understand it. Maybe with a million years of evolution and thought, we will understand and those things that appear supernatural to us now will be no stranger than a microwave oven. Perhaps the area of discord is simpler. Consider the question; "Does science have all the answers?" The sceptics (or those who talk to the media a lot) like to give the impression that the answer is "Yes". (Although with the rider that there are still some footnotes to be added, i's dotted and t's to be crossed.) For the believers the answer is "No". They believe that the great "Book of Physics" is going to be rewritten many times in the future. This doesn't mean they believe the current laws are wrong, just that they are incomplete. This can be demonstrated with some simple questions from the physical realm. We know that most of the Universe is composed of dark matter, presumably it is non baryonic in nature. Is there only 1 type of dark matter? Or is the Universe composed of many different types, each with it own laws? Just by understanding what the stuff is and the laws it follows will change our interpretation of the known laws of physics. (Note, I said "interpretation") If I have a kilo of dark matter on my table, what colour is it? Can I touch it? If it's invisible, is that what Wonder Womans 'plane is made out of? AFAIK, our current laws can't give answers to these questions, and in that sense they are incomplete. Or maybe we'll find that what we think of as "Laws" only apply to the subset of matter called "baryonic"? The stuff has always sounded pretty supernatural to me. But I believe, I have faith, that with thought, and persistance (and satisfactory funding:D) we will turn the "supernatural" into the "natural". I fear I may not have expressed myself clearly, but I hope people get the idea.

Riiiiiiiiigt. So the species we are watching haven't become extinct, it's only the ones we either aren't watching or haven't shown they exist. I can see how asking for some evidence would be irrelevent. We can't let facts get in the way of a good guilt trip can we? Yes, I am derisive of the concept of this "current great extinction". How about some hard data? Either that, or admit that all you have are guesses and speculation. Then we can move this thread to where it belongs. None of the above is meant to imply that there haven't been extinctions due to man, but "Sixth Great Extinction"? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Got anything? Note that one of the OP links is to a petition to "Save the Polar Bears". This is despite the fact that their numbers have been growing for years. But where would the green guilt industry be without a plea to save the pretty animals?

The problem here is credibility. In the OP The Fifth Knight links to this article; http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html The article states in part; It's been 15 years since that estimate was made and if correct then 450,000 species have been lost. Name 10. I won't hold my breath.

Thanks John, I had forgotten. Nobody wants to sing with the bastards. We're trying to get you to understand that some actions have long term consequences. Hitting the house they are in (and they may have forced their way in) shows the rest of the village that you don't give two fetid dingos kidneys for the lives of the villagers. "We want those guys dead and we don't really care how many of you villagers die in the process." Waiting a bit and taking out their vehicle as soon as they are clear of the civillian area sends a much better message "We want those guys dead but we don't want to hurt innocents in the process." Play it the first way and you make enemies. Nobody will believe civillian casualties are "accidents" because you've shown you don't care about civillians. Play it the second way and people will still get upset, but are more willing to forgive you because you've shown yourself to be making an effort not to hurt the innocents. The Gung Ho way plays right into the hands of the recruiters. "See, the Americans don't care about you, you are dirt to them. They blow up your houses, kill your families and destroy your crops. etc, etc etc." Far better to keep the bad guys afraid of leaving the village. It restricts their movement and keeps them where they can be picked off at leisure.

It is an Infrared camera. FLIR stands for "Forward Looking Infra Red". AFAICT, what we were seeing were not "Greenhouse Gasses" coming from exhaust pipes, but footage of the hot exhaust gases. FLIR cameras see hot things, they do not discriminate between chemical compounds. Warm, pure O2 would show up as a "greenhouse gas" on that footage. Ah, the things we study in the name of science.

Interesting idea inuhbad, I wonder if the same applies for other fabrics. It's summer down here and I doubt she was wearing any type of heavy clothing in 30 degree Celcius heat.

And how fast is it today?

http://iinet.net.au/customers/news/articles/741131.html How on earth did she not notice this?

It's just how it is. Western intel know that AQ read the papers. Any statement is made in the sure knowledge that the enemy will read it. Hence you always slant the story. That's nice, but the article clearly called it a village, not a base or encampment. For the rest, I do (to a degree) agree with you. The big caveat here is that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and bombing anything inside it's borders is an act of war. So far Pakistan hasn't made noise about it. Perhaps Mushareff is happier for his people to be p*ssed at the US rather than him. However, if he falls, the situation could change radically. I would also point out that the Pakistani military has been and is engaging Taliban fighters in the region. There's an Al Jazeera news piece here concerning the fighting in Bajour. You might try this piece from the Boston Globe. It's that type of tactic that prevents me from assuming that just because militants are in a house, the householder has welcomed them in. An attack that kills the hostages as well as the bad guys is not a success in my book.

The comment was directed at the quoted poster, pointing out that the actions being lauded in the OP were very similar to those condemned in other threads. This struck me as a double standard. Something that bascule agrees to be "for the most part a valid point." As to your other points; Probably true, however this was a village, not an encampment. Or does a village become an encampment if the US fires on it? 1. He's from the village that militants may have been in, therefore he is on their side? 2. The first casualty in war is the truth. Because "intelligence officials" say that there were militants in the house there were? And it further follows that anybody else in the house was in cahoots? Yep, these heavily armed militants only go into houses when they're invited, right? As to the number of child casualties, I doubt anybody has a figure. But I believe it would be a great leap of faith to assume that missiles can blow up buildings in villages for a year or two and not kill any. (Child casualties were brought up in an Israel thread, hence my mention of them here. Again to illustrate a double standard.) For the record, any statement made by an "intelligence official" referencing combat is propaganda. Statements are issued as part of PsyOps to confound the enemy. (And sometimes to fool your own people.)

Didn't seem to get them though, did it? I understand now. USA launching airstrikes and killing civillians = Okay. Israel launching airstrikes and killing civillians = Bad. From the article; Do you ever wonder about how many of those 200 were children?