Big Barrel Bomb

Written By: - Date published: 3:40 pm, April 14th, 2017 - 81 comments
Categories: afghanistan, International, Media, Propaganda, war - Tags: ,

Yesterday, President Assad of Syria  President Trump of the US dropped what is essentially the world’s biggest barrel bomb. The Guardian seemed quite excited by the whole affair. Seems “big is good”.

For those who get off on war porn..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaiKodpkw00

81 comments on “Big Barrel Bomb ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. weka 1
    14 April 2017 at 4:12 pm

    “Firstly, remember how you’re meant to feel about even the mere accusation of the use of barrel bombs. Now put those feelings aside.”

    I don’t actually know how I’m *supposed to feel. Nor what the point of posting the video is given it directs people to watch it. Sorry, a bit too oblique for me. Is this a comment on the MSM?

    • Sacha 1.1
      14 April 2017 at 5:42 pm

      Also confused. Why feed “those who get off on war porn..” ?

      • weka 1.1.1
        14 April 2017 at 5:45 pm

        Looking at the categories and tags, I’m guessing it’s a commentary on the MSM and probably the Guardian (haven’t read the link).

    • Bill 1.2
      14 April 2017 at 5:59 pm

      Claims of usage of barrel bombs played a significant role in the demonising of Syrian Government Forces and more specifically the Syrian President . As such, “all good citizens” are “meant” to feel outraged and disgusted at the deployment, or alleged deployment, of barrel bombs.

      The video contains some very useful info (on a number of levels), and is what I’d call ‘war porn’ just because of the subject matter. Others might not refer to it as such and that’s fine.

      And just as an aside, I don’t generally put superfluous links in posts. They tend to be either explanatory or to lend context (and so obviate a number of potential questions)

      • weka 1.2.2
        14 April 2017 at 7:43 pm

        thanks, I didn’t know that about barrel bombs and syria, that makes sense.

        “And just as an aside, I don’t generally put superfluous links in posts. They tend to be either explanatory or to lend context (and so obviate a number of potential questions)”

        I tend to need a bit more to go on to follow a link, mostly because I don’t understand the post I’m unlikely to know which bits of the link are relevant 🙂

      • WILD KATIPO 1.2.3
        15 April 2017 at 12:41 am

        I thought the banned bombs were cluster bombs, but I guess barrel bombs are yet another type.

  2. greywarshark 2
    14 April 2017 at 5:21 pm

    Yuk.
    Machine. How many words i can make out of the letters for machine with man as the last one. Is that our evolutionary end? Seems like it.
    1 mach
    2 ice
    3 mice
    3 Maine
    5 chine
    6 mine
    7 can
    8 cane
    9 Mae
    10 man
    Seems to be more positive than pouring in lots of money to make a great big destructive thing, and why would you bother to paint it a fetching green and carefully label it, just stick on hand written label with some cute name like Enola Gay would do. Everyone is so into style rather than substance these days don’t you think?

    (The Enola Gay is a Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber, named for Enola Gay Tibbets, the mother of the pilot, Colonel Paul Tibbets, who selected the aircraft … thanks Wikipedia)
    Wouldn’t the mother of the designer feel a bit miffed that her son/daughter didn’t put her Christian/other name on this thing too?

  3. Richard McGrath 3
    14 April 2017 at 6:01 pm

    I’m surprised no-one has linked this to global warming yet. There must be massive emissions from a bomb this size.

    • Dv 3.1
      14 April 2017 at 6:11 pm

      You just have. Duh.

    • SkepticalSteve 3.2
      17 April 2017 at 11:02 am

      Really? The pictures and videos I’ve seen of this crude object indicate that it’s pretty big for a bomb, but nowhere near as large as the petrol tankers that rumble down our roads every day. I understand that both the tankers and the bomb are filled with hydrocarbons destined to be burned, either gradually by lots of cars, or in one big whoomp. And apparently the Americans have built fewer than a hundred of these ghastly, mostly useless gadgets. So if they set the lot off all at once it would make less difference to global warming than the daily buzzing motors of the cars on our streets.

      There are plenty of reasons to object to this grotesque thing – its orange paint job and general grossness are reminiscent of the idiot who authorised its use, for example – but its ecological effects are not among them.

  4. weka 4
    14 April 2017 at 6:05 pm

    “Amir‏ @amiraminiMD

    The most powerful country in the world dropped the largest bomb ever on the poorest country in the world to stop terrorists it had created.”

    https://twitter.com/amiraminiMD/status/852570452606066688

  5. Andre 5
    14 April 2017 at 6:32 pm

    No worries. Seems the Russkies have a bigger one. So we’re all set for another round of “mine’s bigger than yours”.

    http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/heres-the-father-of-all-bombs-russias-answer-to-the-moab/ar-BBzOuQm?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=mailsignout

  6. ropata 6
    14 April 2017 at 6:46 pm

    Ed Snowden is lashing the USA about this. Worth checking his whole feed ATM.

    .@thenib Those mujahedeen tunnel networks we're bombing in Afghanistan? We paid for them. #Blowback https://t.co/xokL8VCQqk (via @GabiElenaDohm) pic.twitter.com/VDVsUYahiG— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 13, 2017

    And there are some other thought provoking tweets around

    So after 9 years we just pushed a 22600 lb MOAB off the tailgate into A'stan:- Why now?- What was the objective?- Why is it orange?. pic.twitter.com/wyjweXFPSI— JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUAL³³º¹ (@th3j35t3r) April 13, 2017

    This is how a thermobaric weapon like the MOAB affects humans. Now ask yourself if this really sounds any more humane than using Sarin pic.twitter.com/9alYW05yxQ— ms. missile cmdr (@mirahwood) April 13, 2017

    But whatever you do, DO NOT search “MOAB” on youtube because it is full of RWFH (right wing fuck heads) gleefully celebrating their bloodlust.

    • Bill 6.1
      14 April 2017 at 7:08 pm

      Sadly, though predictably, the so-called free and liberal media are in lock-step on this ropata. Hawks from ‘either side of the house’ are on the same page too (whether we’re talking the US congress, the UK Parliament or wherever)

      What I’ve been seeing (and I’ve been away ‘rabbit holing’ on this for a fair bit of the day) is that people I really don’t agree with politically – I’m talking about sections of the ‘right wing’ – they are talking out about this.

      Don’t get me wrong, leftists are too.

      What it comes down to is this. Just as was the case with Snowdon, there appears to be a notable confluence of opinion across left and right on an issue that is leaving liberals and a number of incrementalists squeezed or stranded on a strange middle that’s being cut loose by significant numbers from both the left and the right.

      • ropata 6.1.1
        14 April 2017 at 7:45 pm

        Yes there’s a widening divergence between the wealthy and powerful political elite and those “stranded” voices speaking up for human rights instead of tribalism and fear

    • Skeptic 6.2
      15 April 2017 at 9:40 am

      One small point of order here ropata – I mention this because here is a classic example of relying on suspect tweets.

      “So after 9 years we just pushed a 22600 lb MOAB off the tailgate into A’stan:- Why now?- What was the objective?- Why is it orange?. pic.twitter.com/wyjweXFPSI— JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUAL³³º¹ (@th3j35t3r) April 13, 2017”

      See my comment above about MOAB composition and weight etc.

      Notice any differences? – Yep 18700 lbs of H6 – a fuel-air explosive (thermobaric) – NOT 22,600 lbs. “we’ve pushed…” Not me, nor you nor the writer. “Orange” – no – yet again misinformation – the test weapon trialed in 2003 was orange, but the one dropped on 14/4 was green – the colour US Army uses for weapons – gray for practice (dummy bombs) green for actual – (just like the US Navy uses blue for practice and white for weapons).

      Point being before spreading falsehoods one should check, re-check and check again.

  7. BM 7
    14 April 2017 at 7:03 pm

    Nothing more than show.

    If they were serious they wouldn’t use an airburst bomb but a bunker buster.

    • Muttonbird 7.1
      14 April 2017 at 9:07 pm

      Who are they showing off to?

      Agreed, this device will have zero affect operationally so the intent must lie elsewhere. What on earth does Trump think he’s going to achieve by throwing a lot of bombs around in remote valleys if not to keep the arms manufacturers in business.

      • ropata 7.1.1
        14 April 2017 at 9:57 pm

        If it’s “just” a PR stunt is it somehow more moral?
        Dropping bombs indiscriminately for approval ratings, is a new low in depravity.

        • Muttonbird 7.1.1.1
          14 April 2017 at 10:37 pm

          It’s worse alright. Nothing more than clumsy sabre-rattling.

          I note each of these devices cost USD16million – a sum which probably could have been spent on the local community in better ways.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.2
      15 April 2017 at 12:08 am

      Ah, no they wouldn’t. The MOAB gets all the tunnels all at once because it’s an area effect weapon while the bunker buster would get one small piece of them – if it actually hit the target and if it actually penetrates the ground far enough.

      Basically, you’re talking out your arse to defend this inhumane action by the US.

    • Skeptic 7.3
      15 April 2017 at 9:48 am

      Wrong BM – thermobaric is designed to fill tunnels with incendiary gas which is ignited by the very small explosive charge, thus removing all oxygen from the enclosed space and burning anything organic left behind. A particularly gruesome weapon!!

      A so-called bunker buster is designed to penetrate meters of reinforced concrete – however the largest bunker buster ever designed – Grand Slam by the British in WWII used to penetrate U-Boat pens – would be as much use in the Afghan mountains as a needle against a concrete block.

      Look at a map of where the bomb was used and you’ll see thousands of sq mile of mountains – and the caves are at the bottom of these. Really – what bomb do you think would stand a snowballs chance in hell of penetrating them. Not even a nuke would be able to. That’s why Cheyenne Mountain was built where it is.

      • dukeofurl 7.3.1
        15 April 2017 at 1:32 pm

        The US built its own Cheyenne Mountain bunker complex in Colorado, and the US paid for the building of the tunnel/cave complexes at Aichin and Tora Bora.

      • rocco siffred 7.3.2
        15 April 2017 at 2:54 pm

        “Wrong BM – thermobaric is designed to fill tunnels with incendiary gas which is ignited by the very small explosive charge, thus removing all oxygen from the enclosed space and burning anything organic left behind. A particularly gruesome weapon!!”

        The GBU-43/B is not a thermobaric weapon and does not operate like that, it’s a bomb pure and simple.

        It contains:

        44.0% RDX & nitrocellulose
        29.5% TNT
        21.0% powdered aluminium
        5.0% paraffin wax.
        0.5% calcium chloride

        Note that none of it is a ‘gas’.

        • Skeptic 7.3.2.1
          15 April 2017 at 3:46 pm

          Is that what H6 is? – I couldn’t find it anywhere. I assumed because it wasn’t pure explosive like semtex or torpex or suchlike it was hybrid of some type. I also assumed that because there’s really nothing man-made that can penetrate mountains, so used a chemical that enters the caves to extinguish the oxygen then burns.

          That’s a lot of powdered Al – almost 4000 lbs plus almost 1000 lbs of paraffin, and nearly 100 lbs of calcium chloride. I think those ingredients would, if reaching the high melting point all that RDX, TNT & nitrocellulose generates, do the burning out suggested.

          • rocco siffred 7.3.2.1.1
            15 April 2017 at 7:25 pm

            “Is that what H6 is? – I couldn’t find it anywhere. I assumed because it wasn’t pure explosive like semtex or torpex or suchlike it was hybrid of some type.”

            H6 is actually very close to Torpex.

            ” I also assumed that because there’s really nothing man-made that can penetrate mountains, so used a chemical that enters the caves to extinguish the oxygen then burns.”

            They just used a very large bomb. You were describing a fuel air explosive, which is very tricky to get right in caves etc.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.3.2.2
          15 April 2017 at 3:55 pm

          The GBU-43/B is not a thermobaric weapon and does not operate like that

          Yes it is and yes it does hence its name:

          Massive
          Ordnance
          Air
          Blast

          MOAB.

          What makes MOAB Mother of All Bombs?

          Most bombs are a mix of “fuel” – to drive the explosion – and an oxidizer that the fuel can burn with. The Mother of All Bombs- Massive Ordinance Air Blast (MOAB) is different. It’s a thermobaric weapon, meaning that it can use the oxygen in the air at the detonation site. Because there’s no oxidizer, the bomb can carry more of the explosive fuel component.

          It doesn’t have to have gas as the fuel you moron.

          • rocco siffred 7.3.2.2.1
            15 April 2017 at 7:12 pm

            “It doesn’t have to have gas as the fuel you moron.”

            The post I was replying too very specifically stated it did you moron.

            H6 is exactly the same explosive as used in a standard Mk82 bomb, which would make just about every explosive in the US inventory ‘thermobaric’, they are not.

            The name, Massive Ordnance Air Blast is quite correct, it is a very large bomb that detonates in the air above the target, not on impact.

            I’ve listed the ingredients, they are almost identical to that used in Tallboy and Grand Slam in WW2. Are you going to claim they are thermobaric as well?

            Your link, and the quote from it are wrong.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.3.2.2.1.1
              15 April 2017 at 8:41 pm

              The post I was replying too very specifically stated it did you moron.

              I considered that wrong as well as a ‘gas’ can be produced in the initial explosion.

              H6 is exactly the same explosive as used in a standard Mk82 bomb, which would make just about every explosive in the US inventory ‘thermobaric’, they are not.

              Wrong. It’s not the H6 that makes it thermostatic – it’s the aluminium powder. The H6 is the igniter.

              The name, Massive Ordnance Air Blast is quite correct, it is a very large bomb that detonates in the air above the target, not on impact.

              Wrong. It’s that it’s air breathing that makes it thermobaric.

              I’ve listed the ingredients, they are almost identical to that used in Tallboy and Grand Slam in WW2.

              Almost the same != The same.

              Different proportions will produce different results. And they probably have different ingredients as well.

              So, yeah, you’re just proving your ignorance.

              • rocco siffred …
                16 April 2017 at 9:38 am

                “I considered that wrong as well as a ‘gas’ can be produced in the initial explosion.”

                Gases are produced from all explosions, that’s what an explosion is.

                “Wrong. It’s not the H6 that makes it thermostatic – it’s the aluminium powder. The H6 is the igniter.”

                Aluminum powder is one of the ingredients of H6, the same aluminum powder is used in the Mk82, and most other weapons in the US inventory from depth charges to aerial bombs.

                “Wrong. It’s that it’s air breathing that makes it thermobaric.”

                Again, it’s a conventional explosive, not thermobaric.

                “Almost the same != The same.
                Different proportions will produce different results. And they probably have different ingredients as well.”

                Desperate stuff.

    • joe90 7.4
      15 April 2017 at 11:38 am

      If they were serious they wouldn’t use an airburst bomb but a bunker buster.

      Of course they were serious.

      JDAMs won’t work to get into deep tunnels, because the fragmentary material they shoot out stops at the first twist the tunnel takes. To avoid them, combatants just need to go deeper into the tunnel. Bombs designed specifically to penetrate underground pose similar problems. Though effective when targeting individual below-ground targets, they struggle with crippling long, winding networks. That’s where a massive concussive bomb has the advantage: Its blast can turn corners and push all the way to the furthest reaches of a cave.

      “We made MOAB for this kind of target,” Cancian says. “My guess is that we just didn’t know where these tunnels were before.”

      https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mother-bombs-just-waiting-right-target/

  8. One Two 8
    14 April 2017 at 9:03 pm

    The US and global ‘war economy’ sees to it that the self perpetuating and endless violence continues

    SThere are areas of our planet which we’re marked/selected for destruction and to be used as the unloading zones of ‘stock’ and experimental weaponry

    That it’s ‘brown/black people’ including ‘arabs’ who are targets is unsurprising, when evaluating those who own and control the ‘war economy’

    The case for this planet being a penal colony, is easily made

  9. Psycho Milt 9
    14 April 2017 at 9:31 pm

    When Trump starts dropping them on residential Jalalabad because terrorists, feel free to confuse him with Assad. Until then, there’s no reason to mix them up.

    • Muttonbird 9.1
      14 April 2017 at 9:55 pm

      Netanyahu does this all the time. Backed by the US.

      • Psycho Milt 9.1.1
        15 April 2017 at 5:37 am

        In real life, or just on planet False Equivalence? Feel free to provide some links.

        • Muttonbird 9.1.1.1
          15 April 2017 at 8:16 am

          Lol. Are you now denying Israel bombed residential areas in Gaza and South Lebanon.

          What wars was I watching?

          • Psycho Milt 9.1.1.1.1
            15 April 2017 at 12:14 pm

            Ah, sorry, I was foolishly imagining the fact that this thread was about barrel bombs and MOABs actually counted for something. Yes, Netanyahu, along with many other leaders in the world’s history, has bombed residential areas.

        • greywarshark 9.1.1.2
          15 April 2017 at 1:07 pm

          Psycho Milt – great you see your way through the shrapnel of words that obscure the target and location area as well.

    • One Two 9.2
      14 April 2017 at 10:06 pm

      Regularly through your comments, it reads like the mixing up belongs to you!

  10. peterlepaysan 10
    14 April 2017 at 10:40 pm

    A bomb is a bomb. A barrel or a grenade is bomb.
    So the yanks used a humungus bomb on an underground target in an area a long way from heavily settled areas.
    Bombs are exploding on a daily basis all over the planet. This one was huge. So what?

    The pictures of it do not look any barrel I have ever seen.

    OBTW what is a barrel bomb?

    Bombs are environmentally dangerous to anything in their vicinity, regardless of who is using them whether or not they are parcels, letters, cars trucks, roadside markers or worn by suicidal people.

    What was the point of the (now very distant) post?

    • dukeofurl 10.1
      15 April 2017 at 9:22 am

      The point was , the White House was talking about Assads use of smaller variety as being grounds for another missile attack

      But guess who was the first user of barrel bombs in the middle east, the jewish terrorist groups fighting the British in Palestine and after the partition they used them against the Arabs ( who reciprocated in kind)

      • Skeptic 10.1.1
        15 April 2017 at 10:01 am

        Sorry Duke my friend, but the first use of explosives in the ME goes back quite a few centuries before that – try the Crusades – or even the Romans in 70CE

        • dukeofurl 10.1.1.1
          15 April 2017 at 10:40 am

          Irrelevant- we ARE talking about barrel bombs against civilians.
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_bombs_in_Palestine_and_Israel
          and dropped by planes
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dekel

          • Skeptic 10.1.1.1.1
            15 April 2017 at 11:18 am

            Not really Duke – peterlepaysan wasn’t specific about barrel bombs in ME – I was trying to point out that the use of explosive/Greek fire/incendiary devices has a long, long history, particularly in the ME – the Romans used them in their sieges, as did the Saracens and Crusaders, as did the Ottomans And Seljuks, in direct response to your mistake that the Jewish use IEDs during their independence war was with “Barrel Bombs” – they were most definitely were not – they were what is now termed IEDs. – See wiki on Israel Independence.

            It’s exactly the type of misinformation I was trying to pull people up on the other day. If you’re going to use a term which has a specific military definition, then use the correct term and don’t use something else that either (a) confuses the issue or (b) is actually the wrong term, or (c) is too generalised to to have any specific meaning.

            Barrel Bombs are a specific type of weapon – MOAB is another – Bunker Buster is yet another – IED is quite another as is the term “bomb”. And I’m not splitting hairs – there a shit load of difference between a 50lb IED (used in the King David Hotel attack) and a 18700 lb MOAB (used in the 14/4 Afghan attack)

            So get it right – eh

            • dukeofurl 10.1.1.1.1.1
              15 April 2017 at 1:42 pm

              So you are quibbling about what is or isnt a barrel bomb. ?

              The RAF used them on Germany, they were different to the streamlined bombs which were ‘aimed’ ( in the loosest sense at targets) these ‘cookies’ where just thin walled barrels filled with up to 4000lb high explosive which were intended to create a huge blast wave which could knock down walls , but mostly was used to blow in windows and remove tiles from the roofs of german houses so the incendiaries would burn. The steep german house roofs would mean the light weight incendaries would roll into the street or yard.

              • Skeptic …
                15 April 2017 at 2:32 pm

                Come on Duke – what part of check, re-check and check again your facts did you not understand.

                There is a specific military definition of “Barrel Bomb” – for you to use the phrase indiscriminately is laziness at best – several other words at worst. You let yourself down here mate.

                We’re all pretty much agreed on the use and misuse of weapons – and on their historical usage. To ask people to be correct is not quibbling – it’s asking a standard of accuracy that is expected by the moderator.

                In all of your comments above you’re being obtuse and inaccurate – this doesn’t help the debate because it fudges the issue. The 50 lb IED that brought down part of the King David Hotel in 1948 is by no stretch of the imagination the same as a 5000 lb “cookie” (HE air-burst) WWII British bomb of 1944/45, nor the same as 250 to 1500 lbs Barrel Bombs currently manufactured by several nations; and certainly a long way from the 18700 lb MOAB and 22000 lb Grand Slams.

                The information is only a mouse click away – there’s no excuse for getting it wrong – unless you’re deliberately doing so?

                • dukeofurl …
                  15 April 2017 at 6:04 pm

                  All Im saying , with examples, are barrel bombs were/are used by Britain, Israel, Syria, USA.

                  It is you who is trying to obscure simple facts. They are of course awful weapons when used to batter civilian areas, almost all cases they were not being used against military targets.

              • Bill …
                15 April 2017 at 2:51 pm

                Of course, it could just be that the term ‘barrel bomb’ was coined by way of a rhetorical device that could then get added to a propaganda arsenal designed to be used against those deemed worthy of demonisation?

                It would seem that the term was first and repeatedly applied in relation to the Syrian armed forces dropping munitions from helicopters. The insinuation was that these munitions weren’t ‘fair’ in some way or other – as though only despicable people would use ordinance that attracted the label of ‘barrel bomb’.

                I wonder how underground shelters and tunnels (plenty of those throughout Syria now) are meant to be attacked without the use of very high explosives that likely can’t be mounted on fixed wing aircraft?

                Or maybe the insinuation is that ‘barrel bombs’ are particularly primitive, dirty and indiscriminate?

                And then there’s the IED angle we were meant to consider, but only in relation to Syrian government forces, and most definitely not in relation to water heaters and gas canisters being loaded up with whatever shards and/or chemicals that lie to hand before being lobbed randomly into residential areas of Syrian cities.

                The bottom line, cut up however you want, is simply that “them’s” is bad and “we’s” is good. And some people buy that. And some people don’t.

                • rocco siffred …
                  15 April 2017 at 2:58 pm

                  “Or maybe the insinuation is that ‘barrel bombs’ are particularly primitive, dirty and indiscriminate?”

                  That is the issue, they simply get rolled out of the back of a cargo plane, or helicopter. Not even a pretense of ‘targeting’.

                  • Bill …
                    15 April 2017 at 3:10 pm

                    If that’s the case, then the US has crossed the red lines it drew for Syria…the ones that Syria ‘had better not cross’; ones that are being used to excuse policies aimed at regime change and what not.

                    So…in the interests of even handedness, it would be appropriate if the governments of both Bashar Al Assad and Donald Trump were helicoptered to remote atolls to live out their days.

                    The only question I’d be asking is who gets to occupy the smallest and most desolate atoll? The government that used the biggest barrel bomb, or the government that used smaller ones?

                • Psycho Milt …
                  15 April 2017 at 4:47 pm

                  Or maybe the insinuation is that ‘barrel bombs’ are particularly primitive, dirty and indiscriminate?

                  No, the insinuation is that only the worst dictatorships think unloading barrel bombs out the back of helicopters onto residential neighbourhoods is OK because anyone who opposes the government is a “terrorist.” That strikes me as not so much an “insinuation” as a “reasonable description.” So far, the Trump administration hasn’t sunk that low and would probably have to work pretty hard to achieve sinking that low.

                  • Bill …
                    15 April 2017 at 6:06 pm

                    So the “barrel bomb = evil Assad” narrative actually doesn’t have anything to do with a particular piece of ordinance (the barrel bomb) but rather, is about a county’s armed forces killing civilians of the cities they are seeking to liberate when they drop bombs or launch other ordinance into those cities?

                    The same yardstick apply to Mosul?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      15 April 2017 at 7:24 pm

                      Has anyone heaved a huge barrel of explosives out of a helicopter over Mosul because it doesn’t matter who you kill down there, they’re all terrorists? I must have missed that news item.

                    • Bill …
                      15 April 2017 at 8:38 pm

                      By your own argument, the use of barrel bombs is irrelevant. By your own argument, the issue is the killing of civilians in built up areas.

                      Meanwhile, barrel bombs are very high explosives designed to destroy bunkers and tunnel networks, yes?

                      You might want to view the vid supplied by shakingstick if you’re in any doubt about the amount or level of explosives.

                      So why the outrage and condemnation when the Syrian government seeks to destroy tunnel networks in cities by the only means they know how, and yet no condemnation of the US when it also destroys a tunnel network in the only way it knows how?

                      And please don’t be so disingenuous as to throw the ‘it’s only wasteland in Afghanistan and no civilians or children’ guff. That US bomb has a blast range of one mile. And there is no way that the families of combatants weren’t in that tunnel/cave complex in Afghanistan.

                      You going to reassert the wholly insane notion that the Syrian government considers all citizens of Syria who happen to be in areas controlled by headchoppers as terrorists and so ‘barrel bombs’?

                      Go ahead and do that if you must, but if you do, then you’re going to have to also explain why attempts were made to open up safe corridors in the likes of Aleppo, and why headchoppers are given safe passage away from residential areas such as eastern Aleppo and Homs… and Zabadani …and Madaya – because according to your argument, Syrian armed forces would simply have razed those towns and cities rather than negotiating a way whereby ordinary people living in those places could begin to get their lives ‘back to normal’.

    • Skeptic 10.2
      15 April 2017 at 9:59 am

      For precise definitions of “Barrel Bomb”, “MOAB”, ‘Bunker-buster Bombs” see Wikipedia – note the quantity and type of explosive used (check the type at wiki too to see what it does). Yes you’re basically right that a bomb is a bomb – so firecrackers fall into that definition. BUT the differences are quality and quantity.

      There are large differences in the sizes and uses these bombs are put to. Confusing them – as does the title of the article – leads people up a very useless garden path.

  11. WILD KATIPO 11
    15 April 2017 at 12:59 am

    I remember reading about a year ago about the Lochnagar mine explosion of world war one. And although many other atrocity’s were committed against each other in that war , it was that cold premeditated planning , sapping and detonation that struck me…

    Human beings willfully murdering each other. All that intellect and talent put into even more hideous means to inflict agony and death on each other. Insanity.

  12. Hongi Ika 12
    15 April 2017 at 8:06 am

    Nothing has changed, just the toys are bigger and more sophisticated these days?

  13. Foreign waka 13
    15 April 2017 at 9:06 am

    The tone of the conversations and comments from Trump has changed quite a bit over the last few weeks. When listening to his changing rhetoric one can all but wonder whether he finally gets it: the US economy is build on weapon manufacturing, nothing else. To support this “market” and keep the jobs that are left going they NEED to war monger. Otherwise the US would implode into a civil war. To support this the media is helping to create people completely brainwashed and utterly convinced that destruction is the only way to go. I have no hope for the people of the US to wake up and understand what they have become and the saddest part is, what they could be as a nation.

    • greywarshark 13.1
      15 April 2017 at 1:03 pm

      Think you’re right Foregn Waka. They keep coming out of their shells like hermit crabs, in a binary fashion, all smiley, clever and good or ultra-sensitive to criticism which they take as hate speech and unfair at the least. They are often dour, impervious to anything but the mainstream propaganda and obssessed with their own circus. Which everyone is forced to watch on pain of….. and feeling like frozen hedgehogs under the fast advancing lights of a deadly, flattening vehicle.

  14. Adrian Thornton 14
    15 April 2017 at 1:01 pm

    Internationally America is without doubt the biggest threat to world peace today, a super power that feels it’s grip on the levers of world affairs slipping from it’s grasp, is proving to be even more unstable and dangerous than we could have possibly imagined.

  15. Skeptic 15
    15 April 2017 at 3:55 pm

    I think with all the concentration on the type and effectiveness of the MOAB dropped, we seem to have forgotten two salient points the article provides.

    1. Trumps used the MOAB for the first time – suggesting that this President has become very much enamored with the military and its toys – the US Army has been waiting a fairly lengthy time to “field test” their new toy.

    2. Our “nice middle-class” Murdoch controlled Guardian is crowing like a rooster with two pricks – no bias there – eh?

    I wonder if we’ll see countless re-runs on Fox News?

    • Tamati Tautuhi 15.1
      15 April 2017 at 4:20 pm

      Any Statistics on the Death Toll yet?

      Can’t wait to see some live footage.

      • Skeptic 15.1.1
        16 April 2017 at 9:26 am

        US military claims 36 “terrorists killed and the only imagery I could find was a very small B&W camera shot taken from above – not very enlightening – could have been anything.

  16. Tui 16
    15 April 2017 at 6:24 pm

    bill, would your opinion be different if the tunnels had chemical weapons that were going to be used to kill women and children? i’m not trying to be critical but genuinely interested in your thoughts.

    • Bill 16.1
      15 April 2017 at 6:36 pm

      Would my opinion of the hypocrisy on display alter? No.

      • Psycho Milt 16.1.1
        15 April 2017 at 7:35 pm

        There is no hypocrisy on display (there’s a pretty appalling level of “war porn” of the “let me read you all these numbers about just how enormously destructive this thing is” kind, but that’s a different subject). Trump dropping a big, dumb bomb on a Da’esh tunnel complex in a remote area of Afghanistan isn’t comparable with Assad dropping a big, dumb bomb on suburbs of Darayya or other Syrian towns, and can’t be made comparable via rhetorical means.

        • Bill 16.1.1.1
          15 April 2017 at 8:43 pm

          There’s nothing but hypocrisy on display. See my comment in response to your double standards here.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1.1.1
            15 April 2017 at 9:19 pm

            There’s some value in describing the problem, I guess. It helps educate the naive, for one thing.

        • Spikeyboy 16.1.1.2
          15 April 2017 at 9:30 pm

          Letting your racsism come to the surface a bit there psycho. Naughty bad Afghanis are all Daesh if Usa says so. Couldnt possibly be any local population there?

          • Psycho Milt 16.1.1.2.1
            16 April 2017 at 9:17 am

            Well, it could be my racism, or it could just be a fairly rational understanding that someone who uses a $13 mil bomb to destroy a tunnel complex impervious to normal munitions and located in a remote area probably has a reason for blowing that much dosh on the project, and shits and giggles isn’t likely to be that reason.

            • Skeptic 16.1.1.2.1.1
              16 April 2017 at 1:41 pm

              $314,000,000 was the cost of the MOAB – it’s been reported dozens of times and is the subject of considerable protest in the US because of what that $314 million could have bought.