Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: Karlos on February 06, 2007, 11:06:23 AM
-
Transcript here (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1250317,00.html)
Now, I wonder why the US Military were reluctant to release this? Could it be because it shows just how inept their procedures are?
(emphasis mine)
1336.30 MANILA HOTEL: POPOV from MANILA HOTEL. Can you confirm you engaged that tube and those vehicles?
1336.36 POPOV35: Affirm Sir. Looks like I've got multiple vehicles in reverts at about 800 metres to the north of your arty rounds. Can you switch fire, and shift fire, and get some arty rounds on those?
1336.47 MANILA HOTEL: Roger, I understand that those are the impacts you observed earlier on my timing?
1336.51 POPOV35: Affirmative.
1336.52 MANILA HOTEL: Roger, standby. Let me make sure they're not on another mission.
1336.57 POPOV36: Hey, I got a four ship. Looks like we got orange panels on them though. Do we have any friendlies up in this area?
1337.03 MANILA HOTEL: I understand that was north 800 metres.
1337.12 MANILA HOTEL: POPOV, understand that was north 800 metres?
1337.16 POPOV35: Confirm, north 800 metres. Confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground.
1337.21 MANILA HOTEL: That is an affirm. You are well clear of friendlies.
1337.25 POPOV35: Copy. I see multiple riveted vehicles. Some look like flatbed trucks and others are green vehicles. Can't quite make out the type. Look like may be ZIL157s (Russian made trucks used by Iraqi army).
1337.36 MANILA HOTEL: Roger. That matches our Intel up there. And understand you also have the other fixed wing up this push? For terminal control, if you can.
1337.44 POPOV35: I'd love to. I didn't talk to him yet.
1337.46 MANILA HOTEL: Roger, I believe CASPER is up this push too. Two Super Tomcats.
1337.54 POPOV35: Hey dude.
1337.56 POPOV36: I got a four ship of vehicles that are evenly spaced along a road going north.
1338.04 POPOV36: Look down at your right, 2 o'clock, at 10 o'clock low, there is a, left 10 o'clock low, look down there north along that canal, right there. Coming up just south of the village.
1338.21 POPOV35: Evenly spaced? Where we strafed?
1338.23 POPOV36: No. No. Further east, further west, right now. And there's four or five of them right now heading up there.
1338.29 POPOV35: No, I don't have you visual.
1338.30 POPOV36: I'm back at your 6 - no factor.
1338.31 POPOV35: OK, now where's this canal?
1338.35 POPOV35: Don't hit those F18s that are out there.
1338.38 POPOV36: OK. Right underneath you. Right now, there's a canal that runs north/south. There's a small village, and there are vehicles that are spaced evenly there.
1338.49 POPOV36: They look like they have orange panels on though.
1338.51 POPOV35: He told me, he told me there's nobody north of here.
1338.52 POPOV36: I know. There, right on the river.
1338.53 POPOV35: I see vehicles though, might be our original dudes.
1339.09 POPOV36: They've got something orange on top of them.
1339.10 POPOV35: POPOV for MANILA 3, is MANILA 34 in this area?
1339.14 MANILA HOTEL: Say again?
1339.15 POPOV35: MANILA HOTEL, is MANILA 34 in this area?
1339.19 MANILA HOTEL: Negative. Understand they are well clear of that now.
1339.23 POPOV35: OK, copy. Like I said, multiple riveted vehicles. They look like flatbed trucks. Are those your targets?
1339.30 MANILA HOTEL: That's affirm.
1339.31 POPOV35: OK.
1339.34 POPOV36: Let me ask you one question.
1339.35 POPOV35: What's that?
1339.45 POPO36: (to MANILA HOTEL) Hey, tell me what type of rocket launchers you got up here?
1339.50 POPOV36: I think they're rocket launchers.
1339.52 MANILA HOTEL: . . . (garbled) You were stepped on, say again.
1339.54 POPOV35: MANILA HOTEL, fire your arty (artillery) up that 800 metres north, and see how we do.
1340.01 MANILA HOTEL: Roger, standby for shot. They are getting adjustments to the guns now.
1340.34 POPOV35: Copy.
1340.09 POPOV36: Roll up your right wing and look right underneath you.
1340.12 POPOV35: (angry) I know what you're talking about.
1340.13 POPOV36: OK, well they got orange rockets on them.
1340.17 POPOV35: Orange rockets?
1340.17 POPOV36: Yeah, I think so.
1340.18 POPOV35: Let me look.
1340.26 POPOV35: We need to think about getting home.
1340.29 POPOV36: 3.6 is what it says (a fuel measurement).
1340.31 POPOV35: Yeah, I know. I'm talking time wise.
1340.35 POPOV36: I think killing these damn rocket launchers, it would be great.
(The tape then becomes garbled)
1340.52 MANILA HOTEL: Yeah, POPOV36, MANILA HOTEL. I've got other aircraft up this push. Not sure they're coming to me. Someone else might be working this freak.
1341.00 POPOV35: Yeah, MANILA34 is working them, break, break.
1340.12 POPOV36: Yeah, I see that, you see I'm going to roll down.
1340.15 MANILA 34: Break, be advised MANILA34 is not working the F18s unless they are trying to check in with me, over.
1341.21 POPOV35: Copy.
1341.24 POPOV36:
OK, do you see the orange things on top of them?
1341.32 MANILA HOTEL: POPOV 36 from MANILA HOTEL. Are you able to switch to Crimson?
1341.37 POPOV36: POPOV 36 is rolling in.
1341.40 MANILA HOTEL: Tell you what.
1341.41 POPOV35: I'm coming off west. You roll in. It looks like they are exactly what we're talking about.
1341.49 POPOV36: We got visual.
1341.50 POPOV36: OK. I want to get that first one before he gets into town then.
1341.53 POPOV35: Get him - get him.
1341.55 POPOV36: All right, we got rocket launchers, it looks like. Number 2 is rolling in from the south to the north, and 2's in.
1342.04 POPOV35: Get it.
POPOV36, "rolls in" for an attack and turns his A-10 into a vertical dive to strafe the British column, destroying two Scimitar armoured vehicles and killing L/Cpl of Horse Matty Hull.
1342.09 - GUNFIRE -
1342.18 POPOV35: I'm off your west.
1342.22 POPOV35: Good hits.
1342.29 POPOV36: Got a visual.
1342.30 POPOV35: I got a visual. You're at your high 10.
1342.31 POPOV36: Gotcha.
1342.30 POPOV36: That's what you think they are, right?
1342.39 POPOV35: It looks like it to me, and I got my goggles on them now.
1342.59 POPOV35: OK, I'm looking at getting down low at this.
1343.13 MANILA HOTEL: POPOV 36 from MANILA HOTEL, guns . . .
1343.17 MANILA HOTEL: To engage those targets in the revetts (slopes).
1343.24 POPOV36: It looks like he is hauling ass. Ha ha. Is that what you think they are?
1343.34 POPOV36: 1-2
1343.35 POPOV35: It doesn't look friendly.
1343.38 POPOV36: OK, I'm in again from the south.
1343.40 POPOV35: Ok.
1343.47 - GUNFIRE -
1343.54 LIGHTNING 34: POPOV 34, LIGHTNING 34.
1344.09 POPOV35: POPOV 35, LIGHTNING 34 GO.
1344.12 LIGHTNING 34: Roger, POPOV. Be advised that in the 3122 and 3222 group box you have friendly armour in the area. Yellow, small armoured tanks. Just be advised.
1344.16 POPOV35: Ahh s***.
1344.19 P0POV35: Got a - got a smoke.
1344.21 LIGHTNING 34: Hey, POPOV34, abort your mission. You got a, looks we might have a blue on blue situation.
1344.25 POPOV35: F***. God bless it.
1344.29 POPOV35: POPOV 34.
1344.35 POPOV35: F***, f***, f***.
1344.36 MANILA 34: POPOV34, this is MANILA 34. Did you copy my last, over?
1344.39 POPOV35: I did.
1344.47 POPOV35: Confirm those are friendlies on that side of the canal.
1344.51 POPOV35: S***.
1344.58 MANILA 34: Standby POPOV.
1345.04 POPOV36: God dammit.
1344.14 MANILA HOTEL: Hey POPOV 36, from MANILA HOTEL.
1344.25 MANILA 34: OK POPOV. Just west of the 3-4 easting. On the berm up there, the 3422 area is where we have our friendlies, over.
1344.39 POPOV35: All right, POPOV 35 has smoke. Let me know how those friendlies are right now, please.
1344.45 MANILA 34: Roger, standby.
1344.49 POPOV35: Gotta go home dude.
1344.50 POPOV36: Yeah, I know. We're f***ed.
1345.54 POPOV35: S***.
1346.01 POPOV36: As you cross the circle, you are 3 o'clock low.
1346.03 POPOV35: Roger.
1346.12 POPOV35: POPOV 35 is Bingo. Let us know what's happening.
13446.15 MANILA HOTEL: Roger. We are getting that information for you right now. Standby.
1346.20 POPOV36: F***.
1346.47 MANILA 34: POPOV, this is MANILA 34 over.
1346.51 POPOV35: Go.
1346.55 MANILA 34: POPOV 4, MANILA 34 over.
1347.01 POPOV35: Go.
1347.02 MANILA 34: We are getting an initial brief that there was one killed and one wounded, over.
1347.09 POPOV35: Copy. RTB (return to base).
1347.18 POPOV35: I'm going to be sick.
1347.24 POPOV36: Ah f***.
1347.48 POPOV35: Did you hear?
1347.51 POPOV36: Yeah, this sucks.
1347.52 POPOV35: We're in jail dude.
1347.59 POPOV36: Aaaahhhh.
1348.12 SKY CHIEF: MANILA this is SKY CHIEF over.
1348.18 MANILA34: This is MANILA 34, send SKY CHIEF.
1348.22 COSTA58: SKY CHIEF, SKY CHIEF. COSTA 58.
1348.25 MANILA HOTEL: SKY CHIEF, this is MANILA HOTEL.
1348.30 COSTA58: SKY CHIEF, SKY CHIEF. COSTA 58.
1348.41 SKY CHIEF: Relaying for TWINACT, the A-10s are running against friendlies.
1348.47 COSTA58: POPOV 35, this is COSTA58. Relaying message for TWINACT. Abort, abort.
1348.54 SKY CHIEF: MANILA how copy A-10s are running against friendlies. Abort. Over.
1349.07 COSTA58: From TWINACT, abort, abort.
1349. 11 POPOV35: POPOV 35 aborting.
1349.14 COSTA58: We will relay that back to TWINACT.
1349.18 POPOV36: F***. God f***ing s***.
1350.21 POPOV36: Dammit. F***ing damn it.
1351.17 P0POV36: God dammit. F*** me dead (weeping).
1351.25 POPOV35: You with me?
1351.27 POPOV36: Yeah.
1351.30 POPOV35: They did say there were no friendlies.
1351.33 POPOV36: Yeah, I know that thing with the orange panels is going to screw us. They look like orange rockets on top.
1351.48 POPOV35: Your tape still on?
1351.49 POPOV36: Yeah.
1351.54 POPOV35: Mine is end of tape.
Notice how they engage a target without knowing for sure what it is, then go at it a second time, still without being certain?
Its also quite disturbing that pilots of a tankbuster can't distinguish a tank from a flatbed truck.
-
where is the "shakes my head in disbelief" smiley?
or not so smiley
holy crap!!
time for a retraining exercise. telescopic cameras would be useful in situations like this. along with a friend or foe detection system.
it is also on cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/06/iraq.video/index.html)
-
I'll never forget the news flash about the British armoured car taken out by American A-10's, it was approached from the rear on which it had painted a massive Union Jack.
(http://madeira.ma.funpic.de/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/lmbbox-smileys/smileys/moon/disbelief.gif)
-
There is no doubt on this one, they screwed up badly.
-
you can see the full video on the sun web site.
www.thesun.co.uk
-
Well, war is hell and all the training and precautions can't garantuee that stuff like this doesn't happen. In the end every death is one too many, be it friendly or foe.
-
I'm just waiting for Metalman to post a few links to articles explaining how it was all the British army's fault...
This, being a high profile case means we have ultimately gotten a bit of insight into "operational procedure" there.
It makes me wonder. How many times were there conflicting reports between news agencies (both local and global) regarding airstrikes against civillian targets that competed with the US military insistance that said targets were purely insurgents/whatever?
If they can shoot up their own allies in this "trigger-happy", lax manner, doesn't that actually cast reasonable doubt on at least some of the cases above?
It's not like the they would take any greater care over civilians compared to their own troops/allies and it's also not the case that said civillians could insist on an inquest or obtain any kind of footage to prove their side of the story.
Call me cynical...
-
odin wrote:
Well, war is hell and all the training and precautions can't garantuee that stuff like this doesn't happen. In the end every death is one too many, be it friendly or foe.
You know Odin, that's what I was thinking.
At the end of the day, the man who lost his life was just a soldier doing his job.
If he'd been Iraqi, he would still have been just a soldier doing his job.
Sure, it's tragic but so is the whole war.
-
@Karlos:
If they can shoot up their own allies in this "trigger-happy", lax manner, doesn't that actually cast reasonable doubt on at least some of the cases above?
I don't think there is a person alive who would, providing they are both honest and posess a brain, disagree with that statement.
-
Karlos wrote:
I'm just waiting for Metalman to post a few links to articles explaining how it was all the British army's fault...
No doubt our man'o'metal believes that unless you're an "American", you are the enemy...
Regarding the incident itself, it isn't the first case of friendly fire and it won't be the last, its just another ugly biproduct of something even uglier, war.
-
Blue on Blue Friendly fire is still an inescapable part of armed conflict.
On D-Day at Normandy, naval gunfire was directed against the church steeple in Colleville on the assumption that enemy observers were using it. The town was already in American hands, 64 men were lost.
Friendly fire is seldom acknowledged. Hill 282 in Korea is an example. September 22nd, 1950, the British 1st Battalion of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. The Argylls were fighting back waves of North Koreans covered by a heavy barrage of artillery and mortar fire. But they were running low on ammunition, stripping their injured and dead of spare magazines as the officers exhorted them to make every shot count. The Argylls called for an American air strike. They put out their air recognition panels. According to the Court of Enquiry after the event, the North Koreans also put out air recognition panels of their own. However, the Argylls placed Red/Yellow or Crimson & Gold recognition panels, the correct colors of the day, were the white recognition panels the North Korean laid out. 150 men were killed or wounded. The British Government decreed the details of Hill 282 be kept a secret until 2025. The US government released documents on H-282 in 1974.
The friendly fire toll for personnel during the First Gulf War was about 20% of all combat casualties. Nearly 75% of all vehicle losses were also friendly fire as were 100% of destroyed M-1 tanks.
The first reported Blue on Blue incident during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) occurred on March 24, 2003 when a British Challenger II tank destroyed another near Basra.
Friendly fire has many causes and solutions are only temporary. By the time a truly adequate solution has been developed, a new weapon or new technique brings on some new problem, or the enemy is able to mimic and break the system.
-
I think these friendly fire incidents will always happen, and they are probably best analysed individually.
However in this case with the A10s there is clear evidence that procedure wasn't followed. When you have no combat experience, you better make damn sure of your target!
-
There were problems with communications between ground and air and many things going on for the pilots to keep track of. There were Hornets and Tomcats flying in the area that they are trying to stay clear of. There is artillary firing, which means gun-target lines they have to be aware of. They asked repeatedly if there are friendlies on the ground in their working area and been told "no". They were low on fuel. The pilots did not identify the orange panels as indicating friendlies, but convinced themselves the identification panels were really orange rocket launchers. The British are were they weren't expected to be. Neither pilot gave target references. Mistakes were made.
In war, seconds count, the opportunities for accidents increase exponentially.
-
There are many factors to be considered when discussing friendly fire incidents, famously on d-day American paratroops were dropped behind enemy lines with radios that had been shipped from America with the wrong crystals in them crippling their communication and often meaning they came under fire from friendly artillery totally unable to identify themselves to far away units.
In Afghanistan we had 4 Canadians killed by a 500lb bobm dropped by an American pilot, incidentally I believe the one fatality in the original posted story was also Canadian.
Do you realise up until rescently the Americans had killed more british soldiers than the Iraqis?!
I mean ok, friendly fire happens, but flag down a cab and head for real street here man, the utter incompitence of US personnel has to be held in account, if a trained pilot cannot visually identify friendly vehicles they should not be in the air, they are trained to do this.
And if in any doubt, you dont bloody fire at them!
Im damn sure americans dont give a rats ass about how many Brits or Canadians their brave boys out in 'eye-rak' blow up, knowing the American millitary intimately I dare say theres some sort of friendly fire medal for them on the horizon.
"British soldiers in Iraq are being shot at on a daily basis, although obviously it'll get much safer when the Americans leave and it's only the Iraqis firing at them."
-
Karlos wrote:
This, being a high profile case means we have ultimately gotten a bit of insight into "operational procedure" there.
Call me cynical...
cynical :-)
actually i don't think we have seen any insight to operational procedure. what we have seen is a total lack of it in this case. the problem with general statements such as this is you will only see and hear about the mistakes. you will never hear about successes or when the procedures were followed to the letter. most of the time you won't even hear about near-misses except the most extreme cases. so making a general statement such as this makes no sense.
this is a sad event one that needs full investigation and corrective actions implemented. meaning the pilots/controllers/anyone involved need retraining or punishment for neglecting the procedures and for not being sure of their target.
my heart goes out to the family of the killed soldier and hope his death was not in vain. :-(
-
@jkirk
Ah, but you are seemingly missing the depth of cynicism here. I'm suggesting that in light of this it's conceivable that some of these "successes" that have been reported, such as the "elimination" of "groups of insurgents" etc. were in fact just similar blunders made against ordinary Iraqis.
How many reports were there that contradicted said claims of success? Easily brushed off as anti US propaganda (regardless of the news agency reporting it) or occasionally "irresponsible reporting" and the like?
After all, when it comes to the word of an unknown hysterical grieving civillian versus some top general bloke talking about "successes" on enemy "targets", who are the masses at home going to believe?
It would be laughably easy for the military to simply claim they killed a few insurgents *every single time* they make a c0ckup like this and kill a few ordinary people. It's only when they hit themselves or their own allies do you see them struggling to hide it.
Three years of obstruction in an inquiry that has only been revealed in the light of the leaking of the footage.
"There is no video"
"There is a video but it's classified"
"The video is the property of the US government and we can't get it"
"Whoever leaked it was acting illegally"
:roll:
-
jkirk wrote:
my heart goes out to the family of the killed soldier and hope his death was not in vain. :-(
Of course his death was in vain, as are all the casualties in this damned war, if he wasn't there in the first place he would still be alive. Pretty simple concept, well to everybody outside the US it is...
-
Ah, but you are seemingly missing the depth of cynicism here. I'm suggesting that in light of this it's conceivable that some of these "successes" that have been reported, such as the "elimination" of "groups of insurgents" etc. were in fact just similar blunders made against ordinary Iraqis.
i am not debating this is a possibility since there is a damn good possibility that this is true. i am referring to all the minor operations that go off without a hitch by superior leaders. that nobody gets killed(including innocent iraqis). we will never hear about them since it is not newsworthy. in those cases the modus operandi works since it is implemented properly. now if there are no such cases this is very bad for the training of us combat troops. the training of support troops is minimal(i used to be one).
-
adz wrote:
jkirk wrote:
my heart goes out to the family of the killed soldier and hope his death was not in vain. :-(
Of course his death was in vain, as are all the casualties in this damned war, if he wasn't there in the first place he would still be alive. Pretty simple concept, well to everybody outside the US it is...
if something positive comes out of this incident. attitudes changed, policy changed, or new training implemented to avoid this in the future he did not die in vain. there would be meaning to his death.
however if he was killed and no positive steps were taken to avoid a repeat of this, he did die in vain.
as long as this issue raises the ire of civilians on both sides there is a chance that something positive will come of this. this is probably why it was leaked in the first place. if this was written off as a fluke and hidden as it appears to have been the person that leaked it probably wanted to draw attention so his death would not be in vain.
these are my opinions of course.
-
USA military is a blunt instrument, who rely to heavily on technology to achieve its aims, this leads to many civilian casualties and the occasional friendly fire incident.
In their eyes the aftermath is always some one elses problem.
Did he die in vain? all of people who died fighting in iraq are died in vain, not to mention the people who dont even have blood on their hands i.e civilians.
-
odin wrote:
Well, war is hell and all the training and precautions can't garantuee that stuff like this doesn't happen. In the end every death is one too many, be it friendly or foe.
that's why you don't start a war......even if it's the "only" choice, i'd still rethink and find another way.
-
In their eyes the aftermath is always some one elses problem.
do you have proof of this or are you assuming all military members feel this way?
i don't believe this statement applies to the us military. this may apply to the leadership or some of the troops but throwing around generic statements assuming it is true is wrong.
USA military is a blunt instrument, who rely to heavily on technology to achieve its aims
very true statement
this leads to many civilian casualties and the occasional friendly fire incident.
wrong wrong wrong
human error leads to that or even human incompetance.
Did he die in vain? all of people who died fighting in iraq are died in vain, not to mention the people who dont even have blood on their hands i.e civilians.
i don't think so (at least not yet)i will withhold that judgement until this is over. but i accept you have your own opinions.
-
cecilia:
"even if it's the "only" choice, i'd still rethink and find another way."
Well you are homogametic and therefore common sense is naturally expressed in your makeup. Unfortunately the world is largely ran by people with a common genetic defect - theyre heterogametic. This typically stunts their level reasoning so that it doesnt develop beyond the schoolyard level ;-)
On a serious note though the powers that make the decisions about going to war can rarely see anything beyond their own noses - they simply are happy to wade in with their guns blazing without any thought given to what happens afterwards.
-
On a serious note though the powers that make the decisions about going to war can rarely see anything beyond their own noses - they simply are happy to wade in with their guns blazing without any thought given to what happens afterwards.
I think they can see perfectly clear what's beyond their noses, they just don't give toss. Their care starts and ends with elections.
-
odin:
So are you suggesting that basically democracy is flawed when it comes to important decisions?
-
Heterogametics tend to be risk-takers; there's an argument that this provides the driving force for our species. Fortunately they're largely expendable too.
Homogametics don't get off so easy though. Without heterogametics, humanity would have stagnated long ago.
-
@mel_zoom
"So are you suggesting that basically democracy is flawed when it comes to important decisions?"
Read the novel "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers).
Democracy is probably another failed system, like Communism. We'll find out more definitely towards the middle of this century.
-
fraccy:
"Homogametics don't get off so easy though"
Unlike heterogametics who "get off" far too easily! Often on destructive things :-P
-
I'd say it's the least failed government system we've seen so far, but yes, still very flawed. An ideal system would be a dictatorship. With me at the helm ;-).
-
@jkirk
Nothing has changed in American policy in over 50 years, what makes you think it will change in the future? My late grandfather (who served in New Guinea during WWII) could attest to this as he had a saying;
"Never stand in front of a yank with a machine gun..."
I think that sums it up nicely.
-
mel_zoom wrote:
fraccy:
"Homogametics don't get off so easy though"
Unlike heterogametics who "get off" far too easily! Often on destructive things :-P
Are socks really that destructive? ;-)
-
@CannonFodder
You might have to explain that particular in-joke for the benefit of our erstwhile n00bi(l)e ;-)
-
mel_zoom wrote:
odin:
So are you suggesting that basically democracy is flawed when it comes to important decisions?
Democracy is flawed period.
In counties like the US and UK it's far too easy for people to take advantage of the democratic systems in place.
-
Democracy is flawed period.
Are you a US immigrant to these fair isles?
Or do you watch too much MTV? Full-stop. ;-)
-
"Never stand in front of a yank with a machine gun..."
i wouldn't stand in front of anybody with a machine gun. :lol:
Nothing has changed in American policy in over 50 years, what makes you think it will change in the future?
50 years is a relatively short time in the grand scheme of things. but what i am saying is not a policy change per se though i would like to see that modified or changed completely. what i am referring is tactics and engagement procedures. modifying so this incident won't be repeated this is what i hope will happen. a complete change is too much to hope for at this point.
-
cecilia:
"even if it's the "only" choice, i'd still rethink and find another way."
Well you are homogametic and therefore common sense is naturally expressed in your makeup. Unfortunately the world is largely ran by people with a common genetic defect - theyre heterogametic. This typically stunts their level reasoning so that it doesnt develop beyond the schoolyard level
by mel_zoom on 2007/2/7 20:37:09
fraccy:
"Homogametics don't get off so easy though"
Unlike heterogametics who "get off" far too easily! Often on destructive things
You Ms, owe one Mr X-Ray an apology, two probably, for your blatant hypocrisy when it comes to sexist ¨jokes¨.
-
CannonFodder:
Who said it was a joke? :-P
-
It`s fair to say, that if you gona **** up, make sure your recorders are switched off first.
:rtfm:
-
mel_zoom wrote:
CannonFodder:
Who said it was a joke? :-P
You won´t mind this then will you petal?
LONDON (Reuters) Yesterday scientists for Health U.K. suggested that, considering the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer, men should take a concerned look at their beer consumption. The theory is that beer contains female hormones (hops contain phytoeostrogens) and drinking it makes men turn into women. To test the theory, 100 men were fed 6 pints of beer each within a two-hour period. It was then observed that 100% of the men:
1. Gained weight
2. Talked excessively without making sense
3. Became overly emotional
4. Couldn't drive a car
5. Failed to think rationally
6. Argued over nothing
7. Had to sit down while urinating
8. Refused to apologise when obviously wrong
No further testing is considered necessary.
-
mel_zoom wrote:
fraccy:
"Homogametics don't get off so easy though"
Unlike heterogametics who "get off" far too easily! Often on destructive things :-P
I`m just having problems getting off. :lol: