Pictures of US Marine Corp Aircraft at SHANNON.

by Tim Wed May 01, 2002 03:26

The above picture of the squadron emblem or 'patch' is a bit fuzzy, but if you check out the following link you will see that it matches the patch for VMGR-352, Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron

http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/marine.htm

I have other pictures of this aircraft with some of the Shannon landmarks in the background, but they are too large for me to post on Indymedia!

Regards,

Tim

by IMC Volunteer Wed May 01, 2002 13:02 imc-ireland-editorial at lists dot indymedia dot org

If you send an email to the above address we will contact you for the pictures that are too large and put 'em up.

by Joe Domhan - None Wed May 01, 2002 19:29 jdomhan at yahoo dot com

I would like to know what the big deal is. All of the aircraft are cargo aircraft. In the case of the KC-130, it is an aerial refueler, not a bomber. None of the aircraft mentioned carry any armament. Also, Ireland can be proud that it is supporting the US in the war against terror. This is more than Saudi Arabia can say.

Joe

by Tim Hourigan Wed May 01, 2002 23:09

Joe are you taking the pi$$?

If an aircraft is not specifically designed to drop bombs, but can carry the BLU-82 daisy cutter does it make any difference to the people on the ground when they get vaporised?

Besides, in reply to a parlimentary question
the following were listed as passing trhough Shannon.

type of aircraft that had landed during September and October included the following:
C-130, C21, C20, C9, DC9, P-3, C20G,C38,CB9, C9B, B757, VP3A, C37A, C22, H461, C12, C137, A-10, UH 60, CH47, F16,C141,C40, C5A.

1) 5 C-130;
2) 4 C-141;
3) 6 C-9;
4) 3 C-38;
5) 4 VP3A;
6) 1 C-21;
7) 1 C-12;
8) 1 C-40;
9) 1C-37;
10) 2 C-32;
11) 10 C-20.

see

http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=16723

An F-16 is a fighter bomber
An A-10 is a ground attack aircraft.
A VP3A orion has ground attack capabilities, as do the UH-60 and CH-47.

A C-5 can carry tanks and helicopters inside.
Cargo aircraf are just as important in a war.
Plus I have my suspicion that a C-130 spotted on Halloween night was an AC-130 gunship (comlete with four 7.62mm General Electric XMU midi cannons, twin bofors and a 105mm HOWITZER)

How many of the 6,000+ dead Afghans are terrorists?
How many of the Iraqis killed in their own country by bombs and economic sanctions can be honestly labelled terrorists?

by Joe Thu May 02, 2002 16:11 jdomhan at yahoo dot com

Tim,
It is truly unfortunate that civilians have been called in both the Persian Gulf War and the War Against terroism. However, the blame for civilian deaths lies with Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and the Al Qaeda terrorists. Also, I question the source of 6000 civilians killed in Afghanistan. Remember, the Taliban and Al Qaeda, not the US, are responsible for these deaths

by Tim Hourigan Thu May 02, 2002 22:55

Joe what twisted logic do you work on?
How are victims of US carpet bombing and cluster bombing suddenly victims of the Taliban?

How are the Iraqi people condemned to death by US sanctions victims of Saddam Hussein?

In a screwed up country is it fair to lay waste to an already oppressed people and then claim to be honourable victors? Are the dead now liberated?

Just because thousands of civilians died in the Gulf war too, doesn't mean we should think 'collateral damage' as acceptable.
We shouldn't even accept it as a decent form of language.
6,000 Innocent civilian deaths are 6,000 dead individuals - In Afghanistan, New York or anywhere else.

When the US says it want's to 'get' Bin Laden or 'get' Saddam Hussein, and they don't even scratch either of them, but kill thousands of civilians, in their own homes, why should we accept that? Why should we mimic the warspeak and write it off as collateral damage in a 'just war'.

And when the aid agencies can't go in because of the military and the people are left to die slowly, the cameras aren't interested.

http://www.zmag.org/bivensnews.cfm

http://www.fair.org

According to the UN-run World Food Program, by the end of the year 5.5 million people will be entirely dependent on food aid to survive the winter. That's a quarter of the Afghan population.

Now why the hell should I blame the Taliban for that? That's caused by the US war machine.
It's not revenge for 9-11 to systematically devestate a huge population that had nothing to do with 9-11.

I don't want to get into a running debate with you on a newsire.

But for your reading, here's where you can see the source of the Afghani civilian casualties, cos you sure as hell won't see them on CNN, or NBC (owned by GE) or FOX or SKY news (owned by Rupert Murdoch)

http://www.workers.org

The man who compiled the figure was
Prof. Marc W. Herold of the University
of New Hampshire.

by December he had recorded over 3,500 civilian deaths in Afghanistan.
Various reports since have put the death toll at 'at least 6,000'. I don't have the links or names to hand, but it's by no means a leap of faith given the carpet bombing and the trend in modern warfare to kill way more non-combatants than combatants.

Where was their breaking news on our TVs? The Pentagon's PR machine practically equates reporting of non-american casualties as betrayal.

Not reporting the killings of thousands of civilians in a deliberate act of war is betrayal of the people who died in the twin towers.
What's the difference in attitude between Bush calling the dead Afghan peasants 'collateral damage' and Bin Laden saying the same thing about the people killed on Sept 11th in the US?

by joe - None Thu May 02, 2002 23:37 jdomhan at yahoo dot com

Hi Tim,
Yes, I still blame the taliban and their friends for the deaths of innocent civilians in Afghanistan. The Taliban had ample time to turnover Mr Bin Laden but refused to do so. Also, I am curious as to how Prof Herold arrived at. As far as the US "devastating" a huge population, that is exaggerating. Remember, the US was accused of "genocide" during the Vietnam War, yet the population of both North and South Vietnam increased between 1965 and 1974, according to the UN.

by King Mob Fri May 03, 2002 12:08 king_mob_rulez at yahoo dot co dot uk

The Taliban were one of the most warped insane political groups to ever walk the face of the earth, repressing women and musical instruments and murdering thiefs....

I bet George W's dad and Regan are keeping real quiet about how he put them there during the Afghan Soviet war.

If you're going to play the blame game, it's the US through it's warped "treat the world as it's playground" policy that the taliban gained power. It's the US's genocide of Iraqi children that fed the hate, it's unwilliness to treat Palestinian fairly which bred these killers. I'm not saying their cause is just, rather than you must look deeper than CNN to whats going on

If you're going to go back to the cause of why and who is to blame the trail of blood leads back to the whitehouse, and it's blanket carpet bombing of Afghanistan means another generation of brothers and sisters will bury their parents, fight over pathetic aid packages, watch their families managled bodies destroyed by US cluster bombs, and then they will pick up guns and bombs and attack those who brought them this grief.

And another moron like you will blame them and not the government that is reaping what it sowed.

by Sean McAfferty Sat May 04, 2002 15:17

Joe,
take the above advice. Be in PR, i'm sure FOX news would love you.

"REMEMBER that the Taliban are to are to blame and not the US"

How can I REMEMBER something that is not true?

That's just a piece of Rumsfeld PR.

"They're the bad guys, and if we wipe out whole villages and communities, blame it on the bad guys, not us. To criticise America is always wrong, ans we will abuse the memories of the dead of Sept 11th to justify anything we do 'in their names'
We have free hand to do anything because somebody - who we haven't found cptured or even scratched - killed some of our citizens"

The US had the option of having Bin Laden handed over to a third country and not killing thousands of Afghans. But they decided on war, saying their objective was to get Bin Laden.

They don't know where Osama is now and their still killing Afghan peasants. But the objective has drifted. I guess that's acceptable to narrow minded warmongers.

The USA is responsible for civilian deaths. It's not a major philosophical debate.

When a USAF B-52 carpet bombs an area, or US Marines mistakenly kill Afghan peasants, then they and their commanders (including the commander in Chief) are responsible.

And yes, the US arms all types of scum around the world to suit its warped geo-political strategy.
When the US arms loonies and they go around killing people, the US has to share some of the responsibility for that too.

by Joe - None Tue May 07, 2002 02:19 jdomhan at yahoo dot com

Hi Sean,
Yes, it is the fault of the Taliban-they harbored terrorists, like Osama Bin Laden. The bombing of Afghanistan is not carpet bombing-we are using laser and satellite guided bombs to ensure accuracy. If the US wanted to wipe out the entire population of Afghanistan, it could have done so with zero opposition from the taliban. It is also the US who is providing the vast majority of the humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Transport aircraft, such as those that have landed at Shannon airport, are being used to carry this aid. Therefore, Ireland is not only playing a key role against terrorism, but also in providing humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

Joe

by Moser Wed Jul 17, 2002 21:48

joe
yes, they are using carpet bombs. no laser guided technology is not 100% accurate. sorry to disillusion you. ireland is not aiding the war against terrorism or aiding refugees. they are allowing a country many times more powerful than they to use runways and hangers for whatever purpose they desire. they are allowing the US to do this, because the US is paying well for this. not in outright dollars, but in import/export agreements, sanctions or lack thereof, etc. the greedy capitalists that run government care not for the desolate that exist thousands of miles away. they care little for the poor in their own country. and if you are buying into the PR bullshit about the US giving aid to afghanistan refugees, then you truly are a part of the flock, brainwashed by the corporate media giants who control the ignorant and oppressed. sorry for incinerating your relatives, here have some food. look at it from the afghanistan point of view. the reason the US is giving aid, is to prevent dissent from the UN so they can continue their devastation without interruption, in order to keep the American people content and focused on things beyond corporate scandal, tax breaks to the ricest 1%, big business handouts, and a president who was not popularly elected. george w's father gained approval for launching an unnecesary war overseas; and now his son, after becoming one of the most disputed elected presidents in history, is doing the same, and enjoying expanded powers and public approval. america is the new rome, and we still need our coliseum. provide death and gore of people we've never met, and keep them sedated. welcome to the real world. governments are not humanitarian, they are self preserving, and all actions taken over the past year have been to keep the public happy and to expand power. open your naive eyes and see the truth.

by pip - n/a Fri Jul 19, 2002 00:59 kularhair at yahoo dot co dot uk

When a flag is waved hard enough before your eyes it becomes a blindfold.
C'mon guys, Osama is most protected CIA agent/puppet in the world guys.
The real terrorists are our nice little US conformist, Western so called leaders/pussycats.

Time for reality check if you can't see what's going on, an extraordinary popular delusion to mislead all the gullible sheeple

by Joe Wed Aug 21, 2002 22:25

Hi Guys,
You are the ones who are blinded by Blind Anti-Americanism. If it is anit-American, then, according to you guys, then it must be good.

Joe