15 Responses

  1. Let’s consider this news about undocumented strikes from two premises reflecting on the past and ongoing history of Pentagon accounting atrocities. Yes the strikes happened and no they didn’t. If they did, the failure to report may have been a fairly implausible and ongoing “cloud of war” accounting error that the Pentagon is famous for.
    If they didn’t actually make the strikes but say they did, it could be because (option one) the weapons were sold or given to yet unknown parties. Or (option two) the strikes didn’t happen but the MIC has already billed the Pentagon as if it happened. Or (option three) the MIC wants the Pentagon to be billed NOW as if they happened AND (under either Option two or three) wants the Pentagon to REPLACE the supposed weapons. First rule of any investigation; follow the money.

    • Note: I am assuming under premise one (the strikes happened) that the weapons have already been replaced and paid for.

    • possible. But the way I see it, when they conduct a strike and report it, they have to report:

      1. where it was
      2. who was the target and
      3. what was the outcome (meaning, who got killed)

      In my opinion, they may have failed to report these because:

      1. the strikes were someplace that “the terrorists” weren’t.
      2. couldn’t possibly justify saying there was a “terrorist” at the location and didn’t want to list the real target
      3. the body count was so outrageously filled with civilians, they didn’t wish to have to explain that to various folks keeping track of such things

      • Thank you, everything you say sounds plausible, I also recall reading that during the later days of the Vietnam War the military would fly just past the end of the runway and drop all their payload and fly back. I have a very low opinion of the Pentagon’s accounting practices ($8 trillion to date is unaccounted for) so my bias may cause me to think the worst:)

  2. Most US ordnance is delivered by B-1 bombers flying miles above the target area. The bombing is very accurate because every bomb has an ‘address label’ encoded into its GPS guidance unit. Not quite accurate enough to hit your welcome mat but powerful enough that it doesn’t really matter.
    If there are say, 1,000 unreported missions a year, and each one carries maybe 18 GBU-31 1,000 lb. bombs. and each bomb kills five people- well that’s a lot of dead people. This is in addition to the 25,000 bombs that they previously admitted dropping last year, and the 23,500 the year before.
    My calculator says possibly 422,000 people killed by the US Air Force over the last two years.

    • And GPS doesn’t always work so consistently (at least the civilian stuff I use is fickle), particularly in steep-sided mountain valleys. So perhaps the Air Force isn’t quite as precise as they’d like to be? Kind of like 60% of the time it works every time.

      • Point taken, but my experience with GPS for driving, astronomy equipment localizing, and automated drone (small photographic, not evil people killing) programming is far greater than 60%. Probably more like 98% +.

        • Sorry to say the 60% thing was just a reference to the movie Anchorman. A lame attempt at humor on my part. Totally agree with your 98% plus precision estimate for most civilian applications.

      • And that includes mountains and valleys, albeit not across the entire globe.

  3. Notice that Jimmy Dore immediately accepts that the Huffington Post article is true. Why? Does the Huff Post have a reputation for being accurate, truthful and unbiased?

    Dore doesn’t even query the use of the word, “Reportedly” in an article that has the headline, “Pentagon Reportedly Failed to Disclose Up to Thousands of Air Strikes”. Nor does he point out that there is no evidence in the article to back up this “report”, or what should be more accurately called “rumor”. Even when the Pentagon does make an official statement on anything, is that reason to accept the statement as true and accurate?

    Why do you, Scott, even create a whole article linking to this Jimmy Dore video? Just the other day you pointed out how Dore, along with Cenk Uygur, is part of the creation of a new fake left group called the “Justice Democrats”.

    Never forget Cass Sunstein’s words about the creation of cognitive dissonance in minds of the general public.

    • The story was originally in ‘Military Times’, not the ‘Huffington Post’. I would be the first to agree that the ‘Huffington Post’ has little, if any credibility, but the article was a repost. As for Jimmy Dore, watching his video is undoubtedly how Scott got so ill.

  4. This is for the moron above who I will not name. Scott’s points are simply that…

    [1] People stage demonstrations against excluding refugees, but not against the bombing that creates refugees.

    [2] People treat all refugees as equal. Therefore they want head-chopping terrorist mercenaries admitted into the USA along with the innocent.

    [3] People do not stop to wonder if corporate support for refugees is part of corporate strategies to exert downward pressure on overall wages.

    The moron above cannot understand this, since the moron is too busy whining about meaningless minutiae.

  5. Comment eaten by WordPress (92 words)

  6. Sorry off topic:
    I sincerely hope you are feeling better!
    Bro, I finally got to hear your podcast with Irish(?) Dude. Way to represent! I, as representative of you minions here in AmerEveryManLand are proud of you indeed!
    Please keep slugging and don’t go, you know, quietly into the fascist night here!
    Thank you!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: