Archive for July, 2005

From this post.

EGYPTIANS PROTEST IN SHARM EL-SHEIKH

I’ve railed on about how the media needs to pay more attention when Muslims protest terror. When they’re protesting US military forces or Koran flushing that didn’t happen it’s front page news, but when they demonstrate against our enemies we don’t see or hear a peep.

Why is that? The only theory I heard when I asked that question after noting candlight vigils in Bahrain and Jordan was that the Bush-controlled media wanted to keep Americans scared of all Muslims to keep support for Bush’s war high. Which is stupid.

So what is it? Why aren’t we seeing and hearing about this? Isn’t this what we want? Isn’t this good news? Isn’t this a signal that all isn’t lost? Doesn’t this help show that there’s hope?

There’s no excuse for this. None at all.

Glen Reynolds notes this in his MSNBC column:

What’s depressing is how little attention these demonstrations got from the media (you’ll notice that most of the links above are to blog reports, not news stories). If any of these groups had blown something up — or even just burned President Bush in effigy — they probably would have made the evening news. But when Arabs and Muslims defy news-media typecasting, they seem to be ignored.

If the press wanted to help put an end to terrorism, it would cover these stories — which ought to have the requisite “man bites dog” flavor compared to its usual offerings — instead of largely ignoring them. Why doesn’t it? Stereotyping Arabs and Muslims as anti-American and pro-terrorist seems a bit, well, racist, the sort of racial profiling that journalists decry when it’s done by others.

So why the lack of coverage? Good question. At least, thanks to blogs, the story can get out on its own.

Legacy Media is really dropping it on this one.

From today’s Shark Tank, a column devoted to humorous tech support stories:

They Get More?

User calls help desk with a data-entry problem. “He claims the application is penalizing him for trying to enter 17:75 in a time field,” sighs pilot fish. “I ask, ‘How many minutes are in an hour?’

User responds, ‘Sixty. But I thought we were supposed to enter it in military time.’ “

For higher-res of this and two others (one of which is the interior of the bridge) see Strategy Page.

Noted on Intel Dump by Randal Cook:

Where public safety forces are necessarily equipped and authorized to use decisive force to prevent essentially unpredictable acts of terror, every police action takes on a potentially lethal aspect. We are witnessing a perhaps unavoidable erosion of police procedures as the logic of a global war on terror imposes itself on our public transportation, big cities, and lives.

One result is that it becomes increasingly difficult to evaluate the propriety of a particular police action. I think most people would accept that what is reasonable action for a policeman trying to arrest a fleeing felon is entirely different from what is reasonable for a national security officer trying to ensure that a suicide bomber is incapacitated before he can blow up a crowd of commuters. The problem is when, as here, the fleeing suspect looks, is dressed like, and acts like either a subway toll jumper or a suicide bomber, depending upon one’s perspective. A similarly ambiguous situation regularly presents itself in the skies over Washington, DC.

I am obviously a proponent of military action (when called for) against terrorist organizations and the states that sponsor them. But unlike many “warmongers”, I readily admit that much of the war will be fought with police officers. How those battles are fought, and on what terms, will be discovered over the next twenty years or so.

UPDATE: Jay Tea at Wizbang writes:

Reduced to its simplest factors, there are two possibilities for the suspect — he is a bomber, or he is not a bomber — and two options for the police — shoot, or do not shoot.

First, though, let’s look at the “shoot” option. “Shooting for the body” is a bad idea for a suspected suicide bomber. The body is where the bomb would be, and could set it off. “Shooting to wound” is also a bad idea. The chances of missing are much greater, and a wounded terrorist can still set off the bomb. Shooting to kill, with the head as the target, is the best option.

Now, with two possibilities and two reactions, we have four possible scenarios to consider:

1) The suspect is a bomber, and the police kill him. In this scenario, the innocents killed are zero, and the guilty killed is one — a good outcome.

2) The suspect is a bomber, and the police do not shoot. This results in numerous innocents killed, as well as one guilty person. This is a bad outcome.

3) The suspect is not a bomber, and the police do not shoot. No one is killed.

4) The suspect is not a bomber, and the police kill him. One innocent is killed.

Now, obviously, the third scenario is the ideal one — no one is killed. But this overlooks a single key element — the police have absolutely no control over the first factor. They cannot affect whether or not the suspect is a bomber or not.

Note that I’m not specifically defending the London Police, here. I don’t have enough information to have an opinion. But I’m perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at this time.

I’ve posted a number of pics of AAVs, but never one from above. I know you’ve been wanting one, so here you go:

Better look at Navy.mil

Army Explores Future of Remote Control Weapons

I’ve written a number of times about the Commonly Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS), most recently here.

National Defense Magazine’s latest issue digs into remote weapons, including CROWS’ little brother, CROWS-Lighting:

for trucks and other vehicles that cannot handle the heavier system.

This summer, versions of CROWS-Lightning will head to the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. for testing, and in early 2006 will arrive in Iraq for field tests, said Col. Mike Smith, project manager for soldier weapons.

While the portion of the original system located above a vehicle’s roofline weighs 395 pounds, the equivalent part of CROWS-Lightning is about 175 pounds. A certain amount of mass is necessary to absorb the guns’ recoil, Smith said.

The lightweight versions are currently being tested on Humvees, but potential exists for its use on various other vehicles, including armored recovery vehicles and the Future Tactical Truck System. To reduce the logistics footprint and make maintenance easier, the same mounting and many of the same parts of application kits will be used.

Pick yer poison:

The sensor suite includes daytime video, forward-looking infrared and a laser rangefinder. The heavy version supports the MK19 grenade machine gun, .50 caliber M2 machine gun, M249 semi automatic weapon and M240B machine gun.

More weaponry changes are underway, according to military researchers. “We’re absolutely looking at future weapons,” Smith said.

Plans include incorporating the XM307 lightweight grenade launcher into the CROWS family. The XM307 fires air-bursting grenades and armor-piercing ammunition. The XM312 .50-caliber machine gun also is being examined for use–the low recoil of these new guns can bring heavy firepower to CROWS-Lightning, Stoddard said.

There’s also talk of using CROWS on fixed assets like buildings or checkpoints.

I’ve mentioned that they might be useful on the US-Mexican border, especially if mounted on a track to grant some mobility while the gunners sit in comfort back at the base.

Bush won’t release all Roberts documents

Here’s a gem:

But some Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have urged the White House to release such documents “in their entirety.”

That’s rich.

UPDATE: Scrappleface: Bush to Give Kerry Swift Boatload of Nominee Info

Read this post I wrote last year on this date. Egyptian diplomats kidnapped. Citizens of other nations kidnapped. Darth Sadr criticizing terrorism.

The more things change…

Here’s a quote:

Militants from the previously-unknown group Lion of God Brigades took an Egyptian diplomat hostage in response to offers from Egypt to help Iraq with security.

First of all, please note that the Egyptian offer probably doesn’t involve sending heathen Westerners to holy Arab lands, which is what all the outrage on the “Arab street” is supposedly about. Not only would Egyptian troops not desecrate holy cities and the like in the way that American troops do, but Egypt doesn’t even want to send troops or military forces at all.

It’s not the mere presense of infidels, my friends. It’s resistance to the end of the Middle Ages.

Also noted is the bizarre case of the seven hostages held by the Black Banners:

But other militants, who call themselves the Black Banners, are making new demands for the hostages they are holding: three Indians, three Kenyans and an Egyptian.

A masked member stood in front of the hostages and read a statement demanding the truck drivers’ employer, the Kuwait and Gulf Transportation Company (KGL), pay the families of those killed in clashes with U.S. forces in Fallujah, and that all Iraqi prisoners held in American prisons be released within 48 hours.

The hostage-takers originally demanded the men’s employers or native countries pull their personnel from Iraq or one hostage would be beheaded every 72 hours beginning Saturday.

Copycatting the militants that hit the jackpot by kidnapping a Filipino truck driver, these confused guys are struggling to save face at this point.

Egypt, Kenya, and India have a total of ZERO troops in Iraq.

Just to be safe, however,

In response to the kidnapping, the government of Kenya asked its citizens to leave Iraq, a government spokesman said.

Next time, Kenya, submit a request in writing to all terrorist groups everywhere before allowing any of your citizens beyond your borders.

Armstrong’s final ride sparks emotions

Well, the big “test him till he quits” plan didn’t work out, and Lance Armstrong wins again. Opponents can take heart knowing that they’ll have a chance next year.

Sheryl Crow holds one of Armstrong’s twin daughters (at right) while soaking up the sun.

Last year on this date I noted Armstrong’s sixth win while also noting “American Vanilla” ice cream.

I’m sorry. That’s just funny.