Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Blowed up real good

The precision of modern bombs is on display in this video from Blackfive.

The real constraint in modern warfare is information. Once the position of the enemy is known it's all over. Information is lethal.

The Belmont Club is supported largely by donations from its readers.


Blogger jj mollo said...

To know them is to lose them.

Still not as cool as Stormin' Norman and the lucky driver on the bridge.

3/11/2008 09:14:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

gee, do you think the 'other side' gets all giddy and excited when they blow up a bomb too?

3/12/2008 07:23:00 AM  
Blogger detmer said...

I'm sure they do, but for completely different reasons. I enjoy watching people that strap bombs to mentally-retarded teenagers and blow up children gathering for candy die. They like watching people get their heads sawed off because they don't belong to the same religion.

The reaction may be similar, but the motivation for the reaction is worlds apart.

3/12/2008 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Ash, I suppose so, but we're not blowing up a schoolhouse full of children, or a pet market.

I see that detmer just made the same point.

3/12/2008 07:49:00 AM  
Blogger soflauthor said...


I'm not sure I understand your use of scare quotes around the phrase 'other side.' Are you implying that people who purposely target innocent civilians using children strapped with explosive belts as weapons are NOT the other side? Or is it that you believe that the other side is really just like us and presents no existential threat? Or, is it that the other side is just a manufactured right-wing boogy man and is representative of the politics of fear? Or maybe, you just like scare quotes.

3/12/2008 08:23:00 AM  
Blogger always right said...

Ash, you Prog Loon.

There is no difference in your mind.

Nuf said.

3/12/2008 08:39:00 AM  
Blogger slimslowslider said...

naw, he's the kind of guy that can't draw a distinction between us and them but CAN draw one between sunni and shiite. odd fellow.

3/12/2008 08:42:00 AM  
Blogger Elijah said...

"gee, do you think the 'other side' gets all giddy and excited when they blow up a bomb too?"

wrong terminology friend, it's not blowing up a bomb, but your terminology -
"removal of life support"

now, can you provide everyone with a superb Goebbels analogy

btw - still waiting on that analogous, multinational list of christian or hindu terrorist organizations

3/12/2008 08:59:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

all righteous dudes I see, which is 'just like them'. Don't let those little marks scare you now.

3/12/2008 09:01:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

elijah, what do you think was the purpose of "Shock and Awe" ? Why to "1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."


3/12/2008 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

"gee, do you think the 'other side' gets all giddy and excited when they blow up a bomb too?"

I'd say so. They post enough footage of it on the internet, anyway. When they're not busy posting footage of decapitations and burning people alive, that is.

3/12/2008 09:42:00 AM  
Blogger eggplant said...

Off topic: I really like reading Robert Samuelson's economic editorials. However Samuleson's latest editorial "The Triumph of OPEC" shows that he does not understand what's driving high petroleum costs. Samuleson seems to think that OPEC as a cartel has finally gotten its act together in terms of price control. This is not the case. Greed still reigns supreme. The high petroleum costs are due to Peak Oil.

Saudi Arabia would like to drive down the price of crude oil because it is in their own long term self interests, i.e. low energy costs keeps alternative energy systems from becoming economical. However Saudi Arabia is pumping out as much oil as they can due to Peak Oil. The world has changed fundamentally and people like Samuleson don't realize this.

3/12/2008 09:45:00 AM  
Blogger Elijah said...

what do you think was the purpose of "Shock and Awe"?

a slogan for a particular perspective, analogous to anti-war or pro-choice

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

odd that your example(s)does not include banning of free speech under threat of violence, say movies or cartoons in Europe

moreover, shock and awe would not be required if muslims were as accomadating as Westerners; in the western world occupiers are embraced under the banner of multi-culturalism

Tell us, are their more Muslims in Western lands or Westerners in Muslim lands? Imperialism via mass immigration and birth dynamics.

Again, can you provide that multinational list of christian or hindu terrorist organizations?

please sir - it is better to die of thirst than drink from the cup of hypocrisy

3/12/2008 09:54:00 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Look Ash, these guys have on occasions too numerous to count, directly threatened the lives of me and mine unless I bow to their whims. As we used to say, "Them's fightin' words." Even the First Amendment doesn't protect that.

So now you want me to feel something (really, anything at all; the giddiness you deplore OR the guilt that you imply that we should feel but are too cowardly of your convictions to say so explicitly), now that those threatening me have been dispatched in the quickest, most expedient manner possible?

War isn't about "feeling good," or "being better" than the other guy, or any of that nonsense. War IS about killing as many of the opposing force as possible. It is about doing so in the swiftest and most expedient manner possible, preferrably taking as few casualties as possible (and historically US forces lead the way on that last point). That level of destruction allows one to end the war on the most favorable terms possible and come back home as fast as possible. If one actually makes war correctly, including laying out terms for and enforcing the peace, the other side won't start another war with the winners, ever again.

Believe it or not this is actually CIVIL, compared to the older definition of war (something along the lines of "Kill everything that lives, right down to babies in cribs and dogs in streets"). Our opponents already fight a loose version of that old style--it's why they're losing in Iraq right now, by their own admissions. We keep up with precision strikes like this, we'll be able to bring home our troops all the sooner.

I suppose we ought to ask, "gee Ash, do you think if you stop cheerleading the enemy, we could end the war and bring home our troops sooner, like you keep saying is what you want? Or do you just want a US defeat to feel all giddy and excited about?"

3/12/2008 02:38:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

Hey, guess what? Turns out it's true that criticizing American efforts and expressing the desire to surrender actually DOES encourage the enemy! Here's a ding-dang Harvard study on it:

Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent. The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal. As such counterinsurgency should consider deterrence and incapacitation rather than simply search and destroy missions.

Meanwhile, why is it that the same people who deplore waterboarding as torture, vigorously defend abortion as choice? Which one hurts the subject more?

3/12/2008 02:52:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat@hotmail.com said...

Of course news stories critical of the war embolden the enemy. And so for that matter, do the statements that Ash makes.

But why should it matter if you want the enemy to win? What is wrong with wanting the enemy to win unless one is secretly ashamed of the fact and wants to portray it as patriotism?

After all, if the enemy's cause is just (because they are the "wronged" party) then a principled person would cheer them on. 'Here I stand, etc" Ich nan anders.

But would it be too cynical to suggest that principle is too inconvenient? Better to have it both ways at once. One thing you have to allow Adam Gadahn is that he followed his convictions to their logical conclusion.

After the Liberation from the Japanese and the fall of Marcos the real resistants most hated the guys who tried to have it both ways. I expect it was the same in France and elsewhere.

If the Jihad ever conquers America I would like to be a fly on the wall when all these "secret sympathizers" explain to their new masters how they worked for the winning side while pretending to be "patriots" and expect to get consideration and credit. What they will get is what they deserve.

3/12/2008 03:37:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

I think poor little Ash was just weaned too soon, and has been desperately looking for attention and a nipple to suckle ever after. As have most of his fellow travelers.

3/12/2008 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

I always wonder, do "progressive" depressives just hate themselves, and therefore hating America is only a derivative by-product because they happen to be American?

As Americans, they love France. As French, would they hate France? Is it really America they hate, or just themselves? It's so disgusting to be a modern human, doncha know.

3/12/2008 05:25:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

no folks, I quite like America. It is the people who treat killing as pornography, who actually get a kick out of the killing and blowing up of people, that I don't like. Yes, you become just like those head choppers reveling in the video of the head getting sawed off when you get all giddy and excited over killing folk with your remote controlled precision weapons.

War is hell - not video to get excited about.

3/13/2008 07:05:00 AM  
Blogger detmer said...


Using the scare quotes for the other side, implies that you either don't believe that they are the other side or you feel uncomfortable taking the one side over the other. Which begs the question; If you don't hate America, why do you have trouble positioning yourself on the opposite side of those that have declared their goal is to destroy America?

3/13/2008 09:05:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

Actually, I think you are simplifying things way too much to posit that there are just two sides to the complex place that is Iraq. It implies a lack of understanding on your part.

3/13/2008 09:24:00 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Ahhh, I get it. Ash isn't a tool for AQI and that lot, he's a tool for militias such as Muqtada al-Sadr's crew and their masters in Tehran.

Duly noted, and we'll do our best to keep it in mind. Thanks for the clarification.

3/13/2008 11:09:00 AM  
Blogger Zenster said...


3/13/2008 09:56:00 PM  
Blogger Neo Conservative said...

when you care enough... to send the very best.

hey, ash... i guess it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, huh?

say hi to mr. rogers for me.


3/16/2008 01:30:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger