Posted on 01/15/2006 7:15:47 PM PST by icwhatudo
Ever since a fellow freeper noticed that the photo of a supposed "missle" was actually a 155mm artillery shell, it appeared something was just not right. At the same time in the same province the Pakistani military was shelling a villiage.
Is it possible that allies in the war on terror are offering political cover for one another?
To see what a real missle looks like- In early December, another missle attack occured in Pakistan and remnants of that missle appear in this photo
I stand corrected. By myself.
The "obturating band" is missing from this projectile. The obturating band is a brass ring that forms a seal with the lands and grooves of the cannon when the projectile is fired so that the gasses of the propellant charge all go to moving the round out of the cannon instead of leaking around the projectile. It's kind of an efficiency thing that increases accuracy.
In any case, the one on this projo is missing, indicating it's been fired. Since this is a base-ejecting round, I'm guessing this round was fired and functioned properly (OK, the thing that looks like a broken shipping plug is actually the remnants of the fuze - a closer look would have told me the color is all wrong to have been a shipping plug). What you're looking at is an empty cannister that's designed to kick 'sub munitions' out the back end, but not designed to explode itself.
This was found after a battle somewhere else. It could still be used as a training aid in an IED factory. It's clearly adequate for propaganda uses. Can't say I blame the AQ duds for picking it up in the hopes it would come in handy some day...
BTTT
I don't care what Websters (or whoever made your dictionary) says, the miltary definitions make distinct differences between artillery projectiles, rockets, and missiles. A missile is a guided and non-ballistic. The projectile pictured is neither.
An IED training accident, perhaps?
check this crap out-
(excerpt)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,16937,1686918,00.html
The drone, the CIA and a botched attempt to kill bin Laden's deputy
In the hunt for al-Qaeda, a missile attack on a mountain village killed women and children. The attack was precise, the intelligence was flawed, and the strained relation between Pakistan and the US has been pushed to breaking point
Jason Burke and Imtiaz Gul in Islamabad
Sunday January 15, 2006
The Observer
bttt for Z-1 running around in circles now.
Thats not the original thread I mentioned. The one that was removed was entitled something like "NYTimes Gets It Wrong Again". It was removed due to "Getty Images" being posted. I guess it would be like posting NYtimes articles in full-copyright stuff.
According to Bill Roggio, Pakistani intell was involved. The complaining is for domestic consumption. Good article here:
http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2006/01/zawahiri-and-alqaedas-future-p/
Apparently there is still hope that Zawahiri made the curtain call.
Wow - thanks for that analysis. I hope the powers that be see those things too.
Thanks again.
As I recall that thread it was more about the NYT tossing up a photo not relative to the attack. Everyone focused on the bomb, missile, projectile, whatever - good stuff, even a couple of 'Photoshop humor' injections. When I saw the MSM video accounts hours later EVERYONE in that local had the OBL headband thingy, no one wore turbans.
It was indeed, a NYT agenda hit piece. They used a stock photo, not actual reporting.
The photo URL is
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/01/14/international/worldspecial/14cnd-afghan.184x250.jpg
Why would a so called Paki photo have afghan in it's URL?
It's not about the missile that proves fraud, it's the headdress. The 'head' glove doesn't fit.
Nope, but I am wearing my cap.
Thank you for your analysis.
Have you heard anything 'official' from any US government website?
The corresponding article about the Pak forces being in a firefight that same night in the same area really causes doubt on the prevailing spin.
It would not be out of character for the whole Predator scenario to be fabricated.
And therein lies one of the problems with the 'conservative' movement. Facts don't matter. The original post rallied around the point that the NY Times was wrong. When in fact, from the very definition of English, they weren't. They used the correct definition of the word. As a non-military person, they used the word that best fit according to the dictionary. But Webster's, Oxford, American Standard, they're all wrong. They just have to be. Or else the whole point of the original poster was wrong (not to mention somewhat idiotic). And we can't have that.....
But we'll just get around to redefining all the words in the dictionary to fit your world view shall we?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
