Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Oops! Sorry, Australia
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:33 am Post subject:

Pyongshin Sangja wrote:

Quote:

Try and follow along. The topic was not what the inquiries said, but what YOU said I had said. You made a wrong claim and I corrected it. Once again, you said that I had said the Canadians were to blame. I corrected you by saying I had said they were to share part of the blame. Who said what is the topic here, not the inquiries.

Did you even read either of those articles? They said the Canadians weren't at fault at all. The US and Canadian militaries both said it was the fault of the pilots. The only one saying the Canadians were even slightly at fault is you. Were you there on that night? You're making things up.

Try and follow along. The argument is over what I said. Whether it is right or wrong is beside the point.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

Pyongshin Sangja wrote:

They said the Canadians weren't at fault at all. The US and Canadian militaries both said it was the fault of the pilots.

Not that Pyongshin needs back up, but this is indisputable.

Mr. Supernick is attempting to claim I said something I never did. That is indisputable.

Try this link

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/823187/posts

Thoughts? Comments?

supernick

Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:19 am Post subject:

Quote:

Mr. Supernick is attempting to claim I said something I never did. That is indisputable.

Is it?

What did you claim exactly?

I do remember how fervently you said that it was an accident and the Canadians didn't follow correct procedures.

The two pilots are clearly at fault, and acted recklessly. The only accident that happened is that they didn��t mean to kill Canadians, but dropping a bomb was very intentional and they clearly disobeyed orders.

It was not just a mere accident. It was a tragedy that resulted from the reckless behaviour of a couple of pilots. Sure, there are things that could have helped prevent it like in most things of this nature, but the onus is on those who used "inappropriate use of force" when they dropped the bomb on the Canadian soldiers [color=black]and not on the victims.[/color]

The two pilots are clearly at fault, and acted reclessly.

From the link you used.

According to former pilot in the US Air force on MSNBC last night. The rules of engagement were clear and precise.
If fired upon by ground forces, pilots were instructed to leave the area by increasing speed while ascending ,and to contact command headquarters for further instructions.

The pilots ignored these direct orders by descending, and then engaging their targets. It was an obvious case of insubordination which resulted in the deaths of 4 soldiers.

Article IV of the military code of conduct states the following: "I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way."

Blaming the dead would be one way of defending yourself. The other possibility, is to accept responsibility for your insubordination.

I don't think these guys should go to jail, but I sure hope they never fly another combat mission.

supernick

Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:27 am Post subject:

Quote:

Try and follow along. The argument is over what I said. Whether it is right or wrong is beside the point

So tell us again; How much fault is with the Canadians?

I'm just asking for clarification.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:50 am Post subject:

supernick wrote:

Quote:

Mr. Supernick is attempting to claim I said something I never did. That is indisputable.

Umm, the quote you used was not from the inquiry or from the newspaper. It was one blogger's opinion. OPINION. Not fact.
Nice way to try and twist the article.

Here are the FACTS. The captain not only did not employ red blinking lights (he claimed he was unaware of these regulations, but certainly he should have known them), he also admitted he did not even attempt to fix communication breakdowns with the U.S. forces. And this was after he knew of at least two similar accidents which almost occurred. Reckless behaviour to say the least. The captain even admitted that he didn't think that pilots would have known friendly troops were in the area.

supernick

Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 3:25 pm Post subject:

Quote:

As I said: From the link you used.

How would that be trying to twist anything? As I said, it was from the link you used. As I said, it was from the link you used. As I said, it was from the link you used. As I said, it was from the link you used.

Get the picture?

It makes no difference if it was friendly fire on the ground or not. The pilots disobeyed orders which resulted in the dealths ind injuries of many Canadians.

Two seperate inquiries concluded that the fault lies on the two pilots.

The Canadians were operating under Canadian regulations but under American control. Both parties should have known the rules but that does not put blame on the victim as what you try to attach.

Flying near Kandahar, the pilots saw muzzle flashes on the ground behind them and thought they had come under fire. What they did not know was that Canadian infantry troops were conducting an exercise using live ammunition and small arms in a designated training area south of Kandahar. The training area was well known to American forces, and aircraft were not supposed to fly below 10,000 feet when over it.

The area was well known to the American forces as a training ground.

Still, I and maybe some others would like to know how much blame you would put on the victims, but I doubt you would want to answer that.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:17 am Post subject:

supernick wrote:

Quote:

As I said: From the link you used.

(1) How would that be trying to twist anything? As I said, it was from the link you used. As I said, it was from the link you used. As I said, it was from the link you used. As I said, it was from the link you used.

Get the picture?

It makes no difference if it was friendly fire on the ground or not. The pilots disobeyed orders which resulted in the dealths ind injuries of many Canadians.

Two seperate inquiries concluded that the fault lies on the two pilots.

(2) The Canadians were operating under Canadian regulations but under American control. Both parties should have known the rules but that does not put blame on the victim as what you try to attach.

Flying near Kandahar, the pilots saw muzzle flashes on the ground behind them and thought they had come under fire. What they did not know was that Canadian infantry troops were conducting an exercise using live ammunition and small arms in a designated training area south of Kandahar. The training area was well known to American forces, and aircraft were not supposed to fly below 10,000 feet when over it.

(3) The area was well known to the American forces as a training ground.

(4) Still, I and maybe some others would like to know how much blame you would put on the victims, but I doubt you would want to answer that.

(numbers are mine)

1. You were attempting to portray the quote you used as what the article said. That is obvious as you did not put quotes around the words that you used.

2. It certainly puts blame on the leader (who was Canadian BTW). Moral if not legal. One could certainly argue that his decision NOT to repair communications breakdowns with the U.S. forces led to this tragedy. Then add to that the fact that he KNEW of two other separate incidents, where this almost happened, and moral guilt is quite clear. He both should and could have known. He choose not to repair communications and gambled instead that this would not happen and lost.

3. The area was well-known? Not to the captain and not to the pilots. I would suggest it was not as well-known as you might like to think or others would.

4. What are you fishing for? Exact percentages? Sorry the world doesn't work in that way. I stand by what I said. And some blame (moral if not legal certainly attaches to the Canadian captain (and by association to the Canadian command as they don't seem to have disciplined him.)

BTW I seem to recall us agreeing on that other thread that the pilots were scapegoated. I'll see if I can post a link to the article I was thinking of.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:33 am Post subject:

Here is the link http://www.geocities.com/jaredperi/fallen/archives.html Look at the fourth and fifth articles. Sounds like some kind of cover-up is going on. Who is this air controller and why wasn't he mentioned in the report?

supernick

Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:54 pm Post subject:

No, TUM, I don't have to put quotation marks when I have clearly said it was from the link you used and it was highlighted.

From what I said on this thread:

Quote:

Ask TUM, and he will tell you that the Canadians were to blame for being bombed in Afgahnistan.

So, from what you first said:

Quote:

Any reason you are fabricating facts? I never said that they were to blame, I said they (by failing to follow proper procedures) shared some of the blame.

I realize it is hard for you to tell such subtle distinctions apart though, and as such I can only suggest that you read more carefully.

Not fabricating anything. I only said that if you ask TUM he will tell you that the Canadians are to blame.

Now you are saying this:

Quote:

It certainly puts blame on the leader (who was Canadian BTW). Moral if not legal. One could certainly argue that his decision NOT to repair communications breakdowns with the U.S. forces led to this tragedy. Then add to that the fact that he KNEW of two other separate incidents, where this almost happened, and moral guilt is quite clear. He both should and could have known. He choose not to repair communications and gambled instead that this would not happen and lost

.

As I said, "Ask TUM and he will tell you that the Canadians were to blame".

You've done a pretty good job of proving what I said you would say if asked.

TUM wrote:

Quote:

Try and follow along. The topic was not what the inquiries said, but what YOU said I had said.

And I said that you would blame the Canadians which you have clearly done.

Quote:

4. What are you fishing for? Exact percentages? Sorry the world doesn't work in that way. I stand by what I said. And some blame (moral if not legal certainly attaches to the Canadian captain (and by association to the Canadian command as they don't seem to have disciplined him.)

Now you are saying "some blame."

Why should he have been disiplined. Remember, two seperate inquires found fault with the pilots.

Would you also say that some blame lies with Bush for not disiplining Rumy and the other boys?

Sure, the pilots may have been scapegoated just like in the Abu case which you would prefer to think of only a handful of bad apples. Remember, charging a few of the bad apples was good enough for you. It was a clear sign in your that America disiplines their own.

In all or most tragedies, things could have been different if certain things and precautions would have been done. What had the greatest bearing on this case; A captain who in hindsight should have done things differently, or a couple of pilots who used"inappropriate use of force" and disobeyed orders?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:27 pm Post subject:

supernick wrote:

(1) No, TUM, I don't have to put quotation marks when I have clearly said it was from the link you used and it was highlighted.

From what I said on this thread:

Quote:

Ask TUM, and he will tell you that the Canadians were to blame for being bombed in Afgahnistan.

So, from what you first said:

Quote:

(2) Not fabricating anything. I only said that if you ask TUM he will tell you that the Canadians are to blame.

Now you are saying this:

Quote:

.

(3) As I said, "Ask TUM and he will tell you that the Canadians were to blame".

You've done a pretty good job of proving what I said you would say if asked.

TUM wrote:

Quote:

Try and follow along. The topic was not what the inquiries said, but what YOU said I had said.

(4) And I said that you would blame the Canadians which you have clearly done.

Quote:

(5) Now you are saying "some blame."

Why should he have been disiplined. Remember, two seperate inquires found fault with the pilots.

Would you also say that some blame lies with Bush for not disiplining Rumy and the other boys?

Sure, the pilots may have been scapegoated just like in the Abu case which you would prefer to think of only a handful of bad apples. Remember, charging a few of the bad apples was good enough for you. It was a clear sign in your that America disiplines their own.

(6) In all or most tragedies, things could have been different if certain things and precautions would have been done. What had the greatest bearing on this case; A captain who in hindsight should have done things differently, or a couple of pilots who used"inappropriate use of force" and disobeyed orders?

(numbers are mine)

1. Yes, you do have to use quotes. The quote you used was someone else's words. They were written by another person. The reason you did not use quotes, is because you were trying to make people think this is what the article said, rather than some blogger's opinion.

2. As I have said repeatedly, "shared" blame, not to blame. Learn to read.

3. Not at all. And the people who were intially supporting you seem to have left the discussion. The only good job I seem to have done is convinced them that I have a good case.

4. How does blaming the captain equate to "blaming the Canadians"?

5. Like I said in my first post "shared" blame. Shared blame is obviously some blame. If you share a pizza, you obviously don't take it all.

6. If the captain had done things differently, this tragedy likely would never have happened at all.

supernick

Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:32 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Look at the fourth and fifth articles. Sounds like some kind of cover-up is going on. Who is this air controller and why wasn't he mentioned in the report?

While you're looking for a cover-up, why don't you concentrate on why the flight recorders were overwriiten.

As I said before, and I would like a direct answer this time:

Quote:

In all or most tragedies, things could have been different if certain things and precautions would have been done. What had the greatest bearing on this case; A captain who in hindsight should have done things differently, or a couple of pilots who used"inappropriate use of force" and disobeyed orders?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:28 am Post subject:

supernick wrote:

Quote:

Look at the fourth and fifth articles. Sounds like some kind of cover-up is going on. Who is this air controller and why wasn't he mentioned in the report?

(1) While you're looking for a cover-up, why don't you concentrate on why the flight recorders were overwriiten.

(2) As I said before, and I would like a direct answer this time:

Quote:

(numbers are mine)

1. I would like to know this too. Why were the flight recorders overwritten? Obviously not to protect the pilots. Maybe to scapegoat them?

2. As I said before, learn to read. I answered this question already in my last post. Hint: It's under #6.

supernick

Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:

Quote:

2. It certainly puts blame on the leader (who was Canadian BTW). Moral if not legal. One could certainly argue that his decision NOT to repair communications breakdowns with the U.S. forces led to this tragedy. Then add to that the fact that he KNEW of two other separate incidents, where this almost happened, and moral guilt is quite clear. He both should and could have known. He choose not to repair communications and gambled instead that this would not happen and lost.

3. The area was well-known? Not to the captain and not to the pilots. I would suggest it was not as well-known as you might like to think or others would.

Are you saying that the area that was bombed was not well known to the Americans? Was this area not a designated area for training where Americans and other forces have used for training?

If there was another incident where the Canadians were almost bombed, how would Cpt.Jasper become aware of such an incident?

Other posters might be pretty much convinced that you did a good job of putting blame on the Canadians which I said you would. Sure, you haven't blamed them totally, but reading your comments thus far surely suggest that you are convinced that the Canadians (the captain) should share some blame. The other posters might just think the two seperate inquires reached fair conclussions. You are surely speculating here.

Quote:

6. If the captain had done things differently, this tragedy likely would never have happened at all.

It's easy for you to say that if the captain had done this and that, that the deaths may have not happened, but you really don't know. When you have pilots who disobey orders and drop bombs while taking Go-pills, other incidents like this are likely to occur.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:27 am Post subject:

supernick wrote:

Quote:

(1) Are you saying that the area that was bombed was not well known to the Americans? Was this area not a designated area for training where Americans and other forces have used for training?

(2) If there was another incident where the Canadians were almost bombed, how would Cpt.Jasper become aware of such an incident?

(3) Other posters might be pretty much convinced that you did a good job of putting blame on the Canadians which I said you would. Sure, you haven't blamed them totally, but reading your comments thus far surely suggest that you are convinced that the Canadians (the captain) should share some blame. The other posters might just think the two seperate inquires reached fair conclussions. You are surely speculating here.

Quote:

6. If the captain had done things differently, this tragedy likely would never have happened at all.

(4) It's easy for you to say that if the captain had done this and that, that the deaths may have not happened, but you really don't know. When you have pilots who disobey orders and drop bombs while taking Go-pills, other incidents like this are likely to occur.

(numbers are mine)

1. If this area was a designated area for training and well-known, why would the pilots be dropping bombs there in the first place? Seems highly unlikely

2. Don't even go there. Capt. Jasper clearly stated in the inquest that HE KNEW of TWO (not one BTW) incidents where this bombing of Canadians by Americans almost happened.

3. Then one would think that the other posters would also be jumping in and stating it. So far I haven't heard one poster say that the inquiries were fair and balanced...and given the fact that the recorders were overwritten, that there was an air controller who apparently gave the go-ahead, and that we still don't know everything, that would be a risky statement to make indeed.

4. No, I really don't know, but no more do you. What I was saying is why did the captain NOT do everything in his power to MINIMIZE the chances of such a event occuring? If it has almost happened twice before, sooner or later it is likely to happen at some point.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe