Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    [QUOTE=3Ball;510257]
    Originally posted by Diesel_81 View Post

    Then equip them. The military solution so far has been worse than useless. I'm NOT saying that we wait until after an attack to act. I think the British response to the gel bombers is the model for how we should be working. Going after terrorist groups works. Attacking countries does not.
    Um...

    You do realize that the British have invaded Afghanistan (with us) & Iraq (with us) right?

    So it would seem to me that the British are doing exactly what we are doing, they are using domestic anti-terror units (MI5) as well as local Police units along side the British armed forces & British intel services (MI6).

    Terrorism must be fought on all fronts. That does include law enforcement as well.

    But guess what? Here in America we have done the same thing.

    In Lackawanna, New York the U.S. used about everything at it's disposal to uncover & apprehend & kill a terror cell.

    Gasp!!!! The evil Patriot Act played a key role in getting this cell. Oh my God the horror.

    Now not only were local, state & FBI law enforcment agencys involved but guess what the CIA killed one of these scumbags in Yemen with a predator drone.

    I'm sure your not happy about that but I consider that one of the great accomplishments of the war on terror.

    Now in closing I have to say your opinion that military options have failed are, well for lack of a better word, weird to me.

    We've killed thousands of terrorist & they have yet to do one thing in America since then & no it's not for lack of trying.

    Yes, yes I freely admit we've created more terrorist as well. But I am of the belief that most of them would have been anyway & well the way I see it is that if we have killed off a lot of the better trained higher educated ones. They have to start over again each time.

    Unlike you, I do NOT believe, we can buy peace.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

      Originally posted by Peck View Post

      Um...

      You do realize that the British have invaded Afghanistan (with us) & Iraq (with us) right?
      Gasp! Yes I do! I'm saying that the law enforcement model is working pretty well already. And it should be beefed up.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      But guess what? Here in America we have done the same thing.
      Gasp! That's right, and it's the real reason why we haven't had a domestic terrorist problem in this country in our history, with a few notable exceptions. Our law enforcement option has been working to rid this country of terrorists, and tragically, as you admit, our military option has been busily creating more terrorists AND more terrorist targets.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Gasp!!!! The evil Patriot Act played a key role in getting this cell. Oh my God the horror.
      Gasp! Where's the evidence that the Patriot act was key here? Besides, some provisions of the dreaded Patriot Act are fine and useful. Some are not.



      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Now in closing I have to say your opinion that military options have failed are, well for lack of a better word, weird to me.

      We've killed thousands of terrorist & they have yet to do one thing in America since then & no it's not for lack of trying.
      Gasp! Yes, we've killed terrorists. And we've killed tens (or more likely hundreds) of thousands of civilians. We had no terrorist problem in Iraq until we got there. And now, brick by brick, we've built a country custom made to kill Americans. But weird to call it unsuccessful.


      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Unlike you, I do NOT believe, we can buy peace.
      Gasp! Yes you do! I want to spend billions helping struggling countries rebuild, and you want to spend trillions bombing them back into desperation.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

        Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
        Gasp! Yes I do! I'm saying that the law enforcement model is working pretty well already. And it should be beefed up.


        Gasp! That's right, and it's the real reason why we haven't had a domestic terrorist problem in this country in our history, with a few notable exceptions. Our law enforcement option has been working to rid this country of terrorists, and tragically, as you admit, our military option has been busily creating more terrorists AND more terrorist targets.


        Gasp! Where's the evidence that the Patriot act was key here? Besides, some provisions of the dreaded Patriot Act are fine and useful. Some are not.




        Gasp! Yes, we've killed terrorists. And we've killed tens (or more likely hundreds) of thousands of civilians. We had no terrorist problem in Iraq until we got there. And now, brick by brick, we've built a country custom made to kill Americans. But weird to call it unsuccessful.



        Gasp! Yes you do! I want to spend billions helping struggling countries rebuild, and you want to spend trillions bombing them back into desperation.

        You just said " Then Equip them" reguarding law enforcement.Peck brings up the Patriot Act but your against that. I'm assuming the part where we listen in to suspected terroists is the part your against.

        All in all I look at our law enforcement resources as our last line of defense.They're many terroist camps around the world that recruit,teach and plan operations. After being trained over there, they sneak into this country through the borders or get student visas and lay low for a while. Everyone knows this.What I want to do is get to them before they come here. If they happen to sneak in hopefully our law Enforcement agencies can close on them.

        Sadly These are camps that U.S and its allies can't do anything about with just Law Enforcement.These are camps you must destroy.Personally I think our Special Operations forces along with our allies are doing one hell of a job and in my humble oppinion it's there fight and they should have the lead role.They are a major reason why we can sleep safe at night.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

          Originally posted by Diesel_81
          You just said " Then Equip them" reguarding law enforcement.Peck brings up the Patriot Act but your against that.
          Actually, I said a lot of it is fine.

          Originally posted by Diesel_81
          I'm assuming the part where we listen in to suspected terroists is the part your against.
          No, listening to suspected terrorists is fine. In fact, I've yet to hear a single person of any political stripe speak out against listening in on suspected terrorists.

          Originally posted by Diesel_81
          All in all I look at our law enforcement resources as our last line of defense.
          I agree.

          Originally posted by Diesel_81
          Sadly These are camps that U.S and its allies can't do anything about with just Law Enforcement.These are camps you must destroy.Personally I think our Special Operations forces along with our allies are doing one hell of a job and in my humble oppinion it's there fight and they should have the lead role.They are a major reason why we can sleep safe at night.
          Would you at least agree that there is a big difference between snuffing out terrorist training camps in the backwoods of Tableekastan and invading a foreign country?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

            Obviously there is a big difference.The major difference would be that with Special Operations very few people know where they are operating and what the mission is.It gives us a low profile.

            Here are two questions for you. Would you go for a scenario in which Special Operation forces are used for sabotage/snatch operations in countries like Iran,Syria, Pakistan in reguards to terroist leaders and I'll take it a step further would you also be for taking out the leaders from countries who finance and arm the terroists?Just trying to find out where you stand.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

              3ball you might be suprised by this part.

              But on U.S. soil, unless there is pure all out chaos, I want the day to day fighting of terrorism to fall to the NSA & the FBI.

              Personaly I would prefer we make domestic counter terrorism unit, probably run out of the justice department, not because the FBI can't run it but because they have a lot on thier plate already.

              However I'm sure we disagree on the use of the CIA.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                We've killed thousands of terrorist & they have yet to do one thing in America since then & no it's not for lack of trying.

                Yes, yes I freely admit we've created more terrorist as well. But I am of the belief that most of them would have been anyway & well the way I see it is that if we have killed off a lot of the better trained higher educated ones. They have to start over again each time.
                We killed thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan, maybe. Taliban. And if it was thousands, that is a good thing. Afghanistan was controlled by forces aligned with and who protected Osama bin Laden and his band of thugs who caused what happened in NYC. Remember him?

                On the other hand, I think you overestimate the impact on fighting terrorism in Iraq. It appears to me, mostly, we are just covering our asses there while we attempt to bring an elusive democratic government to the Middle East.

                The occupation in Iraq was never designed as a search and destroy mission against terrorists, and it is make believe to think that it is or was.

                Iraq is not the key to an effective fight against world terrorism, or, at least it wasn't, until you and yours muddled into this morass and raised the stakes, potentially and foolishly, to a whole new level.

                By toppling Saddam, we created a vacuum of power in Iraq, and what we have created is a country without a government able to govern, by force or otherwise, and unable to lead with any unity. Iraq is in a CIVIL WAR, with more than two sides, my friend. This situation is not like a John Wayne movie with the Americans against the bad guys, as you seem to portray the situation. Most of those hundreds of thousands who have died in Iraq since our occupation weren't terrorists, Peck. They were human beings, mostly Muslim, native to Iraq, who happen to be caught in the middle of insanity.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                  Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                  Iraq is in a CIVIL WAR, with more than two sides, my friend.
                  No, Iraq's not in a Civil War, unfortunately.

                  If it was, you'd have some hope of political resolution.

                  Instead what you have is Sunni's killing Shiites, Shiites killing Sunni's and Al Qaeda now taking a back seat but ready to step in and re-ignite things if it starts to calm down.

                  This is far, far messier than a Civil War where you at least have the prospect of bringing the leaders of opposing sides together to negotiate some sort of peace.

                  That said, Al Qaeda has diverted a lot of resources towards (successfully) destablizing Iraq. That's resources that couldn't be used against us. But it certainly isn't justification for what's happening - and if they keep Iraq screwed up enough for long enough, who knows how much of a terrorist haven it could become?
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                    That said, Al Qaeda has diverted a lot of resources towards (successfully) destablizing Iraq. That's resources that couldn't be used against us. But it certainly isn't justification for what's happening - and if they keep Iraq screwed up enough for long enough, who knows how much of a terrorist haven it could become?
                    Really good points. Al Qaeda is, by all accounts, a very minor player in Iraq. But they are there, and I think they are there because they can get much more bang for their buck, so to speak. It is much easier to kill Americans there than it is here. And it's much harder for us to spot Al Qaeda there than it is here, too.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                      Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                      Really good points. Al Qaeda is, by all accounts, a very minor player in Iraq. But they are there, and I think they are there because they can get much more bang for their buck, so to speak. It is much easier to kill Americans there than it is here. And it's much harder for us to spot Al Qaeda there than it is here, too.

                      I disagree with that statement.

                      Not because you are wrong per say, just because in truth over there Al Qaeda has the potential for being killed by our military.

                      Here, what is to stop five Al Quida members from entering the mall of America on one Saturday with a variety of semi auto weapons & just opening fire?

                      Nobody in the mall can return fire, other than poorly armed police & probably no armed security.

                      Over there they may be able to do I.E.D.'s and some sniper activity but they also have the very real potential to be killed by our military as well.

                      However you are right about them being very very very hard to spot over there. It's no picnic finding them here either but it is a little easier.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                        No, Iraq's not in a Civil War, unfortunately.

                        If it was, you'd have some hope of political resolution.

                        Instead what you have is Sunni's killing Shiites, Shiites killing Sunni's and Al Qaeda now taking a back seat but ready to step in and re-ignite things if it starts to calm down.

                        This is far, far messier than a Civil War where you at least have the prospect of bringing the leaders of opposing sides together to negotiate some sort of peace.

                        That said, Al Qaeda has diverted a lot of resources towards (successfully) destablizing Iraq. That's resources that couldn't be used against us. But it certainly isn't justification for what's happening - and if they keep Iraq screwed up enough for long enough, who knows how much of a terrorist haven it could become?
                        Agreed "civil war" is an unsatisfactory term to describe what apparently is going on in Iraq. That was how I ended up using the rather clumsy phrase, "civil war with more than two sides".

                        No doubt, whether we stay or not, because of the current situation, Iraq is now a destination for terrorist insurgents. This unintended consequence of the decision to occupy Iraq angers me as much as anything else. Never mind the trillion in taxpayer money that will have been dumped down the drain as a result of the occupation, and the loss of great young men and women who died trying to bring a new spirit to Iraq - what really bothers me the most is that Al Qaeda, our sworn enemy, has flourished because of our bad decisions.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                          3 days should be enough tiome for 3ball to cough up a source for the silly claim of the US using the number of 30 civilians being the line between bombing or not.

                          I guess we can now safely label that claim:

                          :bull:
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                            3 days should be enough tiome for 3ball to cough up a source for the silly claim of the US using the number of 30 civilians being the line between bombing or not.

                            I guess we can now safely label that claim:

                            :bull:
                            Oops, my apologies, I missed this. I did hear it on the radio, but not Air America! Here is one reference from a chief targeting officer who is commenting that he thinks people find the number surprisingly low.
                            http://tnt.spidergraphics.com/cip/ci...CA76FA4462DC38

                            TC: I understand that there is something called "the magic number" for collateral damage, which is 30 civilian casualties for a target. Please explain the significance of this number, what it means and where that number came from?

                            Garlasco: Collateral damage, is a really poor term because it doesn’t convey a human element, it sounds like you’re worried about some building that shouldn’t be destroyed, and you’re turning people into a statistic but that is the term and I think we just have to deal with it. There is a collateral damage estimate done for every single bomb that hits a target, which is really incredible if you think about it, that the U.S. goes to such lengths, but its part of their responsibility as the belligerent power to do so, and they take it very seriously.

                            It was decided during this war that any target which had an expectation of 30 civilian casualties had to either go to the President or the Secretary of Defense for authorization. When I go talk sometimes at Universities I will say to students, what do you think is the number of civilian casualties for a target that if [that number of civilian casualties is expected that target needs to go to the President for authorization? I’m really astounded sometimes when students say 100 or 1,000 or something like that, and I think they kind of have this World War II model in their minds, and I think we do and should do much better than that.

                            Why 30? I have absolutely no idea, it [is terrible] if you are number 29 and you never reach that threshold. Interestingly, as we were approaching the war we had well over 200 targets that were high collateral damage targets, meaning that at least 30 civilian casualties were expected for that target. There are a lot of mitigating things that you can do to lower [the estimated number of civilian casualties, and we were able to the bring the over 200 high collateral damage targets down to something like 20 to 30 targets eventually that went for Presidential authorization, and of those, almost all were authorized. I think there were maybe two that didn’t get authorization.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                              Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                              Oops, my apologies, I missed this. I did hear it on the radio, but not Air America! Here is one reference from a chief targeting officer who is commenting that he thinks people find the number surprisingly low.
                              http://tnt.spidergraphics.com/cip/ci...CA76FA4462DC38
                              He was not the chief targeting officer.

                              He spent time prior to the war at the pentagon in the role of "chief of high value targeting" however by his own words he says that the real targeting was done from the front line centcom.

                              Here is his quote. "People need to understand that the decisions were truly made at CENTCOM forward, which is in Doha, Qatar."


                              Also let's not act like this is a guy who they plucked out of the middle of the armed forces to deliver a gut wrenching speech about how we targeted civilians.

                              No, let's look at some of his other non-biased work shall we? From the intro in this same article.

                              Marc Garlasco is a senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch (HRW), an international organization dedicated to defending human rights around the world. He has contributed to a number of HRW reports including, Leadership Failure: Firsthand Accounts of Torture of Iraq Detainees by the 82nd Airborne Division, and Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq. Before joining HRW, Mr. Garlasco spent seven years in the Pentagon as a senior intelligence analyst covering Iraq.

                              So, he is from Human Rights Watch & has contributed to articles about civilian war casualtys & torture by the U.S. military.

                              Now I have nothing against him nor does this disqualify what he says, but please let's not act like this is a non-biased observer.

                              Also I would like to just point out this little ditty from his own words, so let's all please remember where this guy is coming from. Again it doesn't make what he says untrue but let's not act like he doesn't have an axe to grind.

                              TC: How did you go from recommending targets at the Pentagon to being a Human Rights Watch Analyst?

                              Garlasco: I will be honest with you, I didn’t support the war in Iraq


                              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                                Peck, You're right. He is a biased observer talking about Iraq. Just like President Bush. Just like everyone on this board. I didn't quote him for his opinion, but for his inside information. And thanks for the correct: Chief of HIGH value targeting.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X