tac airlifter

that's a lot of questions bro, I'll try to engage: Your screenshots are real, and principals have said so. However those screenshots do not show any secret war plans and I see nothing inappropriate about them (other than the bone headed move to add the wrong person). The troubling claim is that within the same text chain secret information on operational details was shared, but the journalist was too patriotic to release that info. Instead we should trust him, and the principals should resign. DNI refuted that assertion under oath today, and the journalist himself has a history of pushing debunked Russian collusion claims in the past. If proof exists that these principals were discussing secret operational details on an unclassified system, fire them at a minimum. I think that covers the gist of your questions without answering each one line by line. curious what is meant by "secret war plans" considering the journalist making the claim has never seen secret war plans. I have, and I've seen unclass principal level discussion of messaging sync after tactical strikes. The legal distinction making something secret is if release could reasonably be suspected to cause damage to national security. So, let's see it then decide.

Other than the claim from a compromised reporter with a history of pushing false narratives, do you have any proof of this claim? If it's true it should be easy to produce a screen shot.

Stop trying to make WICKR happen! I'll never log into Teams!

Yes, that's what I want. The assertion is these were war plans for strikes that have already happened. If that's true there is no OPSEC issue with releasing them, and it would convince me to advocate for punishment. "Trust me, it's very secret and they should resign" is insufficient from the same person who pushed the Russian collusion hoax. That said, adding a reporter to your principal chat group is laughably stupid & incompetent. If Waltz did it, regardless of whether secrets were discussed, he should be fired.

Agreed 100% with your last few posts, I think some folks aren’t understanding what you’re saying WRT “experience” and the implications to AF decisions recently. Hours is a poor metric to judge “experienced” but it’s a good metric to judge “inexperienced” because there’s no training that can take effect below a certain threshold and I assert that principle applies across communities. That said, not sure experience of the MP plays into this since the procedure design was so bad and controller so complacent. There’s an over-emphasis on altitude deviation when it appears the entire RW crew had zero SA on actual CRJ location they were instructed to follow. It’s a shit procedure and they flew it poorly (including the IP). I get it, I’ve made a lot of mistakes but holy shit the risk acceptance of DCA with RW training flights flying under you is totally unacceptable.

When I was a SQ/CC I sent alot of guys to get seaplane and tailwheel rated at a 2 week civilian school in Alaska. I would have done everyone but didn’t have the budget, instead it was about 2 dozen and used as an incentive/reward for great work: IP OTQ, Pilot OTY, etc. Didn't work with everyone’s schedule so randos got to go too. It definitely teaches pilots to unlearn some overly safe attitudes in UPT (nothing wrong with that for their level) and how to fly aggressive without being unsafe, meaning have the confidence to take calculated risks. You can’t quantify the benefit of learning to be comfortable outside your comfort zone, but vignettes can draw connections between unconventional training and success in unconventional combat situations. It’s the same logic used sending officers for masters degrees- “this may not apply directly to current job but you’re learning how to think using new tools, thus arming you for the unknown.” That’s the argument I used to get it approved and left my boss speechless, lol. My thoughts are that if you aren’t actively finding fun creative ways to make the team better you have no business leading. Also if you aren’t willing to take some personal career risk by trusting the team to do these things, you have no business leading in combat. We ought to have the best pilots in the world and that costs money and requires leaders who aren’t pussies.

I don't think this will change how you feel, but for the record you were completely wrong. if I were you, I would be asking myself: what other strongly held opinions do I have based on things I assume to be true but are in fact, not true? How else am I the victim of a propaganda machine?

I'd be happy to engage with you if you could answer one question: who blew up the Nordstream pipeline?

So from your perspective coordinated MSM reporting based on anonymous sources is more credible than a sitting member of Congress fully read into the subject matter and speaking on the record? We disagree. Given your use of POG as a pejorative can I assume you yourself have a combat infantry background? your assertion that everyone is an unqualified white male in this administration is false, rendering your DEI question moot. "Qualified" is subjective but gender/ethnicity is not:

Is there any chance you’ve been misled by the MSM regarding the precise nature of SECDEF cyber order? I personally don’t know what going on, but the MSM lies constantly and here we have someone in the know disputing your assertion. 🤷🏽‍♂️ Also curious if you can explain the “POG” characterization since the dude literally deployed as an infantry officer in combat?

This is a great point, once we established air superiority against the Taliban, the Houthis, & HTS we've dominated. That's why Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria are solid victories for the US 🇺🇸 Honorable mention to Libya, Somalia, Mali. And the "all air power no-fly zones" from Iraq in the 90s definitely prevented a decades long ground war. You seem like someone who spent the last 20 years fighting all over the world gaining a wealth of practical combat experience, not at all a new guy.

I quoted that person because after responding myself multiple times I felt perhaps their words would make the point I was attempting in a way which resonated better and added details. If you feel my own points were inarticulate I welcome that feedback. I did watch the video. In fact I posted a 10 minute clip of the video. If you have feedback on something I said, I’m ready to listen. If you have additional inputs on the quote I added to assist my point, I’m not interested, it’s boring. Didn’t know you were waiting? Here’s my standard: if the quote is cogent and concisely articulates a concept I find true, I will use it. I have a whole list of quotes, and many of them from people with moral failings including Ghandi (who beat his wife), Socrates (who was found guilty of corrupting the youth) and Sun Tzu (who was a racist mercenary). I try to judge ideas based on the ideas, rather than dismiss them because the speaker has other failings.

“The only people you can find?” Bro the thing just happened today and I linked a post which made articulate points. If that poster has posted offensive stuff about a different topic at a different time, I do not care or find any relevancy. So your standard for quoting someone is you agree with them on every topic they’ve ever articulated? Noted.

So a "known racist" has a POV on a topic unrelated to race, and it's "not ideal" that a similar POV aligns with this? What? hope you don't like vegetables, because Hitler liked vegetables and we know how that turned out.

Yea, again I agree with that assessment. However, if Zelensky had the tiniest modicum of common sense he would've sat there calmly or made a short polite rebuttal: "we have different perspectives and are still talking this through" and all is well. Perhaps it's because English isn't his first language or he's dumb but whatever weird lecture/tirade he began was poor form from a practical standpoint given the power dynamics in that room. Simply put: he's dead without our support. Now he has a very valid question: diplomacy didn't work earlier with Putin why would it work now? And if we stop here, what's to prevent Putin from assessing he has won and continuing the aggression? Dude, these are the real questions of the conflict and the attempt at peace. And I don't have good answers myself, and maybe neither does Trump. But how a world leader like Zelensky does not understand Trump is thin skinned and that tactic will not work on him is beyond me. edit to add: this X post articulates my sense of this event