u.s. general on npr: fewer "indirect attacks" on u.s. bases in iraq

[fryguy]

just heard Gen. Sadler (sp?) saying that incidents of attacks on US bases are way down in recent days; used camp fallujah as an example. but when he mentioned it he referred to mortar attacks as "indirect" attacks - did i hear that right? how the hell are mortar rounds landing in a US base indirect?

[bryant69]

1. I guess because it's harder to find where a morter round is coming?

That's the only answer that makes sense to me.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Junkdrawer]

2. The answer to your confusion is in the report's source...

They don't call NPR "National Pentagon Radio" for nothing.

[beam me up scottie]

3. I was listening to NPR as usual on my way to work

and I heard that idiot. I also heard that they are finger-printing and iris scanning all residents coming back to what's left of Fallujah. This, I knew, but they also said that residents will have to wear ID cards.
ID CARDS????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why don't they just tattoo a serial number on them like the Nazis did?
Yes, we are definitely earning the trust of Iraqis.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Keep Thinking We're Winning...Sheesh

Now was I on a different planet last week or was that attack on Mosul indirect as well? WTF. I guess any day when a military installation isn't blown to bits or only a handful of soldiers are killed isn't a direct attack as well. Vietnam-speak at its finest.

I see this thing headed into a "Tet"-like situation...where our lazy, compromised media gets cowered into only reporting "good news" (translation: ignore anything that makes this regime and the Military/Industrial pillagers look like the cold-hearted profiteers they are) and pretend we're winning "hearts & minds".

I'm not sure which is more incredible at this time...the total denial of reality by those that support this fiasco or their attempts at creating an even greater parallel universe...one that insulates them further from both the pain and the blame.

[beam me up scottie]

6. They also said that their are fewer insurgents in Iraq and

the ones that were left were terrorists who were only trying to stop the elections(must be those freedom-haters). Wow, I don't know about you but I can't think of any other reasons why they keep attacking us.

[fryguy]

10. missed that part of the story...

and glad I did....it would have sent me into a rage!

[izzie]

5. Just what is an 'indirect attack"?

I can not figure that out, plus the papers say that their are more attacks than ever.

[HereSince1628]

8. Indirect includes mortar, artillery, and rockets

About half way through the article there is a list of things associated with the term indirect.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E11676%257E2612121,00.html

I don't profess any knowledge of the underlying principle that makes these indirect, but each of the above explodes and has a zone of destruction that can include things not actually hit by the projectile.

That might make their destruction "indirect."

Construction of a terminology to distinguish different categories of enemy fire seems a necessary part of being able to analyze enemy capability and its use.

[CRK7376]

9. Mortar fire is an

indirect fire weapon system. You ain in the general location and hope to hit the target. Where as a direct fire system is a bad guy with a rifle or machine gun aimed at our troops. BOth do terrible damage....

[fryguy]

11. still doesn't make sense

because even if you're aiming in a general direction, the round is still firing directly from the mortar tube to the target - even if the area that is hit doesn't actually turn out to be the desired target. in that sense, the mortar is a proximity or inaccurate fire system perhaps, but the damage to the target is still caused directly from the weapon

but perhaps my understanding of the term "direct" differs from the military's

[TacticalPeek]

14. It refers to the route that a projectile takes.

A rifle, pistol, RPG launcher, etc. is aimed directly (roughly) at the target, so you are looking down the barrel at the aim point. This is direct fire.

Mortars, artillery etc. are 'aimed' at a point high overhead and the projectile descends (gravity) onto the target. This is indirect fire.

A tank might use both. If it is aiming several blocks down a street at the corner of a building, the gun is level, you could sight down the barrel at the target, that is direct fire. Or, a tank could be used as artillery by raising the gun up at an angle and firing projectiles a few miles away.

Usually with indirect fire, those operating the mortars or artillery may not even see the target, and depend on forward observers to tell them where to send the ordnance.

[Selatius]

7. Trying to secure Fallujah is not working out at all

We're still being attacked inside that cratered landscape even after we started trying to filter these civilians.

[Renew Deal]

12. The mortar is considered a non-precise weapon.

It's very difficult to aim. I heard some stuff like this after the Mosul bombing.

[noshenanigans]

13. Question

Has there ever been anything released (and confirmed as from al-Zarqawi or anyone else)that says specifically that such attacks *are* in the interest of deterring the elections? I haven't seen any proof of it being anything other than the same "please get out of our country" stuff as before, but has there been any specific mention of deterring the elections (not on Fox News)?

I'm so tired of being so cynical, but with * in charge, it's hard to be anything else.

[The Stranger]

15. NPR(Neocon Public Relations)

What else would you expect? Now stop it, or you are going to upset and confuse the millions of imbeciles trying to stay in step and in line behind the head imbecile.