Why Did The Pentagon Falsify Reports About Military Successes In Fight Against ISIS?
December 11, 2015 Republicans from the House of representatives of the U.S. Congress announced the creation of a special task team that will investigate the facts of distortion of data about the operations of the coalition in Iraq and Syria. The group will be to identify falsification in the reports, as well as figure out whether the problem is systemic in nature. The decision to create special group was adopted in November after more than fifty analysts of CENTCOM complained that their reports on the results of operations of the coalition against ISIS have been reduced in order to present the situation more positively.
Despite the fact that the preliminary results of the investigation must b? submitted only in January, Rep Jackie Speier has confirmed that the falsifications which underestimate combat capabilities of ISIS took place indeed. As one of such examples is the May statement of General Thomas Weidle, which said ISIS “loses and remains in the defense”. However, immediately after his speech, terrorists has captured the Central quarter of Ramadi, the administrative center of Anbar province. If American leadership possessed a clear picture of what is happening, it could take emergency measures and even prevent the ingress of arms, military equipment and ammunition to the hands of militants. The value of US arms and military equipment captured by jihadists equals hundreds of million dollars.
Indeed questions about whether we can trust the CENTCOM generals had to appear in October last year when ISIS captured supplies which US Air Force were supposed to delivered to Kurdish militia in besieged Kobani. According to the military press-release, in order to avoid capturing one of the caches which was blown by the wind from the place of destination, the military container was destroyed by the air strike. The rest of caches were successfully delivered. However, Pentagon spokesman Steve Warren reported that the two containers were lost on the route and only one cache was destroyed.
Moreover the military representatives thwart one another talking about the diversion of weapons into the hands of terrorists, they are confused about the total number of dropped containers for Kobani defenders (Warren reported about 28 containers, whereas previously said only 6).
In addition, the soothing assurances that the container captured by ISIS won’t give any advantage to the enemy are not convincing. Pentagon reported that only 80% of water and food which were transported by air for religious minorities in northern Iraq were successfully delivered. And as we see the Kobani example shows that even the use of GPS-guided parachutes can’t be insured. So, how many weapon American taxpayers gave to jihadists?
“Carefully selected” participants of the CIA program on training “moderate” opposition who easily join the jihadists tell us about the lack of awareness or even falsity of the American military leadership. Thus in September 2015 almost immediately after arriving from training camps to Syria “Division 30” has transferred all their equipment, arms and ammunition to Jabhat al Nusra. Unfortunately that was not the first time. Once again the unit commander told about the shortage of instructors and the lack of supply during the preparation of the CIA program. But it was allocated about $500 million for these purposes! What the money was spent on? To buy weapons for terrorists!
During the discussion of 2016 budget, almost every article in the mainstream media avoided the issue connected with the effectiveness and practicability of training “moderate” opposition in order to fight ISIS to the issue of what are the results of this opposition efforts against Assad. Are these things of equal value?
We hope that the special group of the House of Representatives will identify not only the scale of the fraud reports about the results of the coalition activity against terrorism, but also those persons who are responsible for these misconducts, as well as their motives. The international community wants to know who exactly Pentagon supplies with weapons and what installations it bombs.
(26 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Aren't they worried about the shoddy Toyota air bags?
That's actually not a bad idea. Why send our brothers and sisters in the military over there when you can just get them to kill each other.
Have CIA transfer oil out to purchase weapons and "trucks" without going through Congress. And destroying the trolls that you created.
I'm actually OK with that.
Well, in the meantime these guys create a brand that can be easily franchised, and leaves untold human misery in its wake. I honestly don't know what the big idea is in Iraq -- oil pipelines, MIC wares, deliver chaos to Putin and Iran's doorstep. Whatever it is, I'm watching a Frontline episode on ISIS, and it makes me sick to think that we're not doing everything in our power to eradicate these guys and their twisted worldview.
The point is that the US is supporting them. They're hell bent on getting rid of assad and installing a government that's more amenable to US interests, which primarily means oil. It's the same shit as Saddam and Qaddafi. They don't give a flying fuck about their twisted worldview or how many hundreds of thousands die from keeping this shitshow going.
"Control oil and you control nations. Control food and you control people." - Henry Kissinger
What Kissinger failed to think about (and millions have had to die because of it) is that it doesn't make any difference who controls the oil, it's still going to make it's way onto the market as it must be sold. So we could have stayed out of these wars and just as easily used all the extra money to rebuild our own country. Oh yeah, but then there's the issue about having to keep his Petro-Ponzi-Dollar scheme alive so politicians can wrecklessly spend to buy votes. But I maintain there would have been enough money left from the defense budget to do that anyway.
So in the end your left with the conclusion that these people aren't really human (humane) and just like to break shit and create misery because it's the only way they can still get a hardon.
Heinz Kissinger is another weirdo. He, Patton, Forrestal, and Mickey Marcus were all contemporaries, yet while the other three all died in "accidents" Kissinger is still standing. And fostering bloodshed.
kiss[ass]inger is a fucking plagiarizer as was churchill [mommy's boy!]
i am curious about your churchill refernce; am not disputing; i do not know. have never heard any such allegation. always willing to learn. want to enlighten me?
It would be worth the deaths of half a million children.
Its a great idea if they would stay on target and not have their own plans of what they would like to do with all those lovely free weapons, compliments of uncle sam, like what recently happened in Paris.
Damned difficult to find reliable terrorists these days, not like the good old days.
Actually Russia doesn't like the opium flowing out of Afghanistan into Russia. They would rather it just get to Europe directly and part to the US but until you get the Russian border guards and police to not accepting bribes to let it get into Russia you are fuked.
Yeah, well, still, you should have put a /sarc tag in there or newbie's will think you're serious.
The program to help the gas companies operating in Qatar has developed a very expensive life of its own. Ousting Saddam was for the petrodollar, ousting Assad for shooting the area free for the pipeline that the corporations working in Qatar want.
Maybe you should write a thank you letter to the US State Dept for providing funds for enabling that gas pipeline. There are some US companies among them so you will benefit from the profit that the corporations make selling that gas to the EU (if they still exist and if the whole project can be implemented after Assad has been assassinated.)
the whole god damn war on terror is BS so of course the war in iraq is gonna be trash.
Interesting that nothing happened on NYE...other than the Tel Aviv shooting...NOTHING happened as people all around the world gathered in large groups.
I guess the 'radicalized' muslim youth was out watching Star Wars, wolfing down the large Icee and large tub of butter flavored popcorn. Burp!
Defund the Pentagram and give the money to the Russian Aerospace command to finish the job.
Zerohedge is publishing the same articles as News Doctors? http://thenewsdoctors.com/
What's the connection?
Interesting ... so who steals whose content here? or this is the same provider?
Um, automated Vacation Tyler?
From TheNewsDoctors About page:
The connection is probably at the attribution at the top of the article: Via tamarlomidze blog,
All media are inspired by what other people run. Sometimes it's advertorials like for Star Wars which had full spectrum coverage in all media, sometimes people just poke around their favourites sites and pick out a topic. The various writers here, under the editorship of what's his name, may also publish stuff on other networks. No harm done.
ZH is primarily a content AGGREGATOR. You can find most material offered here elsewhere. Nothing dishonest about it.
This article opens with "Via tamarlomidze blog," so I guess that says where it came from.
Edit: Ooops unintended dupe of
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-01/why-did-pentagon-falsify-report...
The US military gets a free pass from the US public. Goes back to that Madison Avenue ad campaign "support the troops" created during the first Gulf War in 1991. Interestingly enough, I marched in a Thanksgiving Day parade just prior to that where some members of the public were still shouting "baby killers" as we marched passed. Good times.
The "support the troops" narrative is clever. It continues to intertwine the individual soldier narrative with the larger narrative of the MIC perpetual wars so that, by the time someone has said "support the troops" it equates to "support the war."
Even the soldiers have been suckered into volunteering through the barrage of Hollyweird movies that paint the military in a positive light, lack of jobs in the local economy--most enlistees are from rural small towns--and an almost complete lack of critical examination of anything military related. The US military brokers no criticism, no careful examination, no scrutiny. Nothing.
Petraeus' surge? He bribed Sunnis to stop attacking US troops. Not reported. Not investigated. Not questioned. Petraeus becomes a US hero. Fraud, waste, abuse, corruption in military acquisitions? GE owns half the media and has substantial stake in military procurement. No investigations. No scrutiny. Military suicides outnumber combat deaths? Not investigated. US troop deaths in battles? Not investigated, not researched. Military reports are taken as gospel. Pat Tillman case comes to mind as an example of the fraudulent nature of military cover-ups in the combat reporting process.
We could go on. The US military is one massive cesspool. The tragedy is that is chews up and spits out some of the finest youth our country has to offer.
As veterans its our duty to call the MIC and Pentascam on their neverending bullshit every chance we get.
The US military has to be the biggest pork recipient in the world. The former head of Blackwater, Prince, was recently interviewed saying there's yuuuuuuuuuge waste in the Pentagon/military.
It definitely is. The US buys 45% of the world's arms. The next closest is 8%.
Guns?
This is some funny shit...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6r6fZlvISk&feature=youtu.be
Speaks from experience I guess because the salaries for these mercenaries have been outrageous last time I looked.
THE U.S. SPENDS MORE ON DEFENSE THAN THE NEXT SEVEN COUNTRIES COMBINED
http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
I agree with your post 111%.
Another sad fact of the matter is that the quality of US military personnel is has declined significantly, is declining, and will decline further. Allowing women into combat roles is just one symptom of the underlying problem: the politicization of the military as a weapon to further social goals. Great, now even the Infantry and Special Forces units will be subjected to increased social strife and the petty office politics that women bring around, not to mention whole hosts of sexual tension that could be deadly or even catastrophic for entire units in a war environment.
Iraq & Afghanistan also pushed the lower boundary of troop quality to depths never before seen, to the point where gang members with neck tats were allowed into ranks, and where semi-functional retards (not hyperbole here) and illiterates were welcomed into some MOS categories with open arms.
I can guarantee you that the average IQ among supply, transportation and artillery personnel is sub-90. Guar-an-fucking-tee-it. There may be other MOS groups with similar numbers. The abundance of not only chubby, but of outright obese soldiers is another issue as well. The Chinese are laughing, and justifiably so.
Dude, they're letting illegals join the military. You don't even have to be a US shitizen.
Well, that's nothing new. Actually they lowered that requirement too: you no longer have to put in 4 years of service to become a US citizen, you only need 1. It's a guaranteed route, for the whole family too.
Concur.
A couple of weeks ago I was at my local supermarket and a young woman serving me was (new to the job) was telling me in conversation how she had come from Darwin and had been in the Army there. But when she was informed she would be deploying to Iraq she refused to go. Her reason was that she had a young daughter. The Army of course immediately told her to get lost and dishonorably discharged her. She was clearly a coward, and in the Army under false pretenses. She had no intention of fighting in war. She also apparently didn't think there was anything wrong with her being in the Army and getting paid to train for war fighting in lethal combat, or that she was implicitly deserting her fellow soldiers. Or that she clearly already had decided she would not honor her oath and never had any intention of going to war. She was a shameless dishonorable opportunistic untrustworthy coward and fraud. And apparently she didn't even realize it, she was perfectly OK with it and had no hesitation blurting out what she'd done in public. Not a bit of shame. And no one had apparently dared to point out what it implied about her, as a person.
I've no doubt the male soldiers weren't surprised when she made it plainly known she was a coward, and effectively a deserter. She probably still expected to be treated 'equally' too, after all, she had a daughter, there were 'special' extenuating circumstances! Well why the fuck was she in the Army and drawing a pay, getting trained, wasting everyone's time and resources, undermining deployment readiness and reducing fighting capability of those who actually deployed?
You see, this little example is indicative of the difference in (general) attitude and commitment between most males and most females in the military. Most men intend to fight and most women intend to run away. I'm not saying that to be sexist, it's how we're biologically preset.
Females tend to go defensive, flinch, crouch, run, try to withdraw if attacked. It's how they're pre-wired. If they have a child they will commit to a lethal fight if pursued or cornered and have no escape options. Otherwise they will generally decide in advance to avoid fights before they develop, especially if they have a child. Males will generally attack if attacked (and it is males who overwhelmingly instigate most violent attacks, btw girls). A male will generally not go defensive, or seek to withdraw, he will usually fight even if it looks like he will lose as he's already mentally preset to commit to having a violent fight. Psychological, intellectual and physical commitment is baked-in even before fights develop.
Our genetic gender trait expressions are extremely different and it was no accident. Females were never supposed to be fighters, it's totally physically bleeding obvious they're physically mentally set up to make themselves attractive for sex, and for child rearing. And it's equally perfectly bloody obvious that men make themselves attractive for sex via strength and the ability to fight and win thus successfully defend a female, and provide food, especially meat, via being a better hunter and killer.
We all know that's the truth of what we are. So why are we surprised that women are a constant problem in the military, and will never really be like fighting males, or as committed to the lethal fighting. So we see this sort of attitude (above) repeatedly emerging from having women in modern military. Being all 'modern', in 2016 Australia doesn't change anything, women will never commit to the military role and task the way a male will, they will continue to try to find reasons, rationales and excuses to not commit to fight, and not do what they said they would do.
Problem: It is the men who attack, not the women
Most young fit aggressive male soldiers will quickly 'realize' most female soldiers (not all, but most) are uncommitted so untrustworthy, time-wasting, emotionally weak, seem timid (if not be perceived as cowardly) so will naturally will judge them very harshly in an armed forces context. Females in the Army are fish out of water and may be made unwelcome due to it, and are then obvious targets for sexual exploits or personal denigration. From the young male's perspective, what else is she good for in a professional fighting force but the potential for some sex? Hence the sexual aggression behaviour we see. If the males don't even get the possibility of sex out of her they may reject her entirely and she probably realizes that is the deal, so may feel she must give sex ... or ...go defensive and run away. Which many do. And which just confirms the male view that she never should have been in the Army. It would be a rare female that the males saw as their equal in the Army context, and respected as a peer.
It is important that young females understand the dynamic nature of what's termed male "misogyny" an it's natural roots. Apparently feminists and women's studies experts still have not even begun to understand why it always develops and persists, and why no amount of brow-beating or social 'education' will ever stop it. Men do not respect a woman who tries but can not be what a male is, any more than a woman would respect an aggressive man who tried to act superficially like a woman naturally does.
It's completely absurd when you spell it out plainly, but that's what 'feminists' are trying to force on society and on the military roles that come natural to (most) men. It isn't going to work, feminist brain farts about mythical equality will not defeat 2 million years of evolution of both young male ,and young female natural reactions and traits. To attempt to do so is idiotic, so we can safely predict the problems integrating young females into military fighting forces will result in incessant misfits, abuse of every kind, scandals, cover-ups, administrative ill-treatments and the resulting media and political circus.
All because no one wants to face the obvious facts of what we human beings are, and how we really operate. We are constantly being told to suppress what we are, and to act like something we aren't, and that is guaranteed to fail, the only question is how badly will it fail?
Some Australian Chief of Army pops up to demands the 'misogynists' change their ways or "get out!" of the Army. Well that speech was a sure sign the General understands the female-male dynamics among the fighting force he commanded, almost not at all. It's not too confidence-inspiring that a General hadn't even been able to work out the basic reason behind it. If you don't know why it happens how are you ever going to do anything about it? Well, he's taken his own advice and gotten out now.
But for some salient ideological context, the General's secretary was originally a male when it joined the army, but now is a female, and it was that particular transvestite with its tax-payer funded army sex-change operation as his secretary, who encouraged that General to make his trite little speech.
You can imagine what the actual combat force thinks of those two, right?
The genders are in fact optimized for specific roles, and a transgender shemale is the last person you want to be taking advice from on this, if you're in the position of head of Army, with responsibility over a whole fucking continent, and its people.
Duh!
Epic rant, loved it. Should be required reading for all recruits.
Woo Hoo! It's long been my assertion that the "real" decline in the United States began with Women's Sufferage...
...and no, I wouldn't go back and change it. It not a woman's fault for being a woman. As Element said, they are just doing what they were programmed to do. It our fault boys, we capitulated and without our steadfastness, the womenfolk run amok.
Don't believe me, just take an unbiased look at the voting patterns...
Spoctor Din
I've never seen a case like that, but I've seen plenty of "perpetual pregnancy" behavior among females. Getting pregnant guarantees them a desk slot for the duration and for 1 year afterwards. Only know of one who was booted for trying to get pregnant, but only because she was stupid and blabbed about it in a crowded room. This chick (black too) would go to bars and essentially walk up to (presumably other black) dudes and ask for sex.
I wholly agree with you that women have very little, if any, place in the military. They are resented for not having to bear an equal burden, but then are sometimes equally perplexed as to why they're not respected. Over-reactions often occur too, whereby a woman in a position (not necessarily earned) of authority will abuse that authority and torment men of lesser rank. Others feel that they constantly "have to prove themselves" (which may indeed be a genuine feeling), but will cause them to resent themselves for not being able to keep up. Look, women just cannot run as fast: their hips are not designed for it; they do not have the upper body strength: were never designed for this either; and almost instinctively, like you said, will mentally disintegrate under any real pressure.
I wouldn't claim they'll "mentally disintegrate", and I don't want that to be the impression I gave, I don't think that per-sec, but their gender wiring is less ideal for attacking and killing efficiently, and surviving it all. And physically it is generally so, as well. They are set up for defending and survival by withdrawal. Not a bad skill to have, but most of them are not real good at that either.
How many girlfriends or daughters have you had who can't navigate their way across a city or open terrain, or follow basic land marks to orient and travel accordingly, with viable accuracy? Who don't seem to pay attention to those things, so rapidly become disoriented and dependent on the alpha male who's doing it automatically? Most females won't go too far before they're effectively lost, and asking for some directions. And they don't like it if you give them that look which says, "How the hell can you possibly be lost already?".
That's the sort of thing I mean, we're pre-wired to do it automatically, while they can do it once they've be told its possible and how to do it, and to pay attention to it before and after moving. i.e. they are less efficient, less aware and need more training. That's true for a lot of things with regard to training females, to do what male brains and bodies are already setup for.
Ater I served I went to work for the Coast Guard. Good kids, but, the young servicemen were always complaining about having to 'help out' the female servicemen because primarily of lack of physical strength. Not good while at sea.
Now the young women were good kids too, but they needed to be in desk jobs or other support roles. There was also issues of sex since you had young men and women in tight quarters.
We had all male combat units.
They approved females on RAN subs about ten years back. A woman who thinks a sub career is a good choice has either been very poorly advised or is a ginger headed screwball.
I tend to agree with all of you...but. Why even have a f**king military because it is just there to serve the banksters, elites and evil.
The whole idea of a citizen milita is much better. Works for Switzerland and worked for the USA before it became owned by central banksters. This is what the Framers of the US Consitution wanted.
Worked in Donbas (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) recently. It took a while an dsome Russian help but very quickly they kicked Kiev's arse because many Ukrainians did not want to fight for Nudelman-Tel Aviv's New Ukraine.
I'm conflicted when it comes to individual soldier stories. As far as this issue goes, I agree with you. In a broader context, this is one of the reasons I think the military needs a complete overhaul. I mean complete. I understand the classic "deserter" narrative, but I don't agree with it. You have to understand that most of the military structure, hierarchy, discipline, soldiering philosophy is rooted in 17th century European battlefield tradition. This argument could be levelled against the Constitution as to its applicability in this day and age, but I would disagree. The Constitution is a document that was carefully crafted and weighed after lengthy and contentious debate by the brightest legal minds at the time. It was crafted to reflect universal ideals on universal values and the relationship between the citizen and his government. In that respect, I would argue the US Constitution is timeless.
The military was formed according to European battlefield doctrine and customs simply because it was expedient. It was never debated or studied or questioned. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of military men are rarely progressive creative thinkers. Most are conservative traditionalists, and in the conformist environment of the military tradition and conformity are highly praised virtues even when they become detrimental to the institution. Let me give you an example. The officer corps in the US military is largely an aristocratic institution. This would appear dramatically at odds with the so-called democratic or put differently, egalitarian nature of our society. But in the military you discover quickly there is the officer aristocracy, and everyone else. Sorry, but it's unpallatable. That the military requires some form of structure and chain-of-command is one thing, but to say the military requires a command structure based on the social norms and values of 17the century Europe is fucking retarded. How many E-6s have I seen who could competently run a platoon better than any 2d LT recent college graduate fucktard? I think it borders on 99%. So I would advocate a command structure and promotion structure radically different than the current structure. Radically. But... this antiquated inherenty un-American idea that college education = smarter more mature "leadership" = noblesse oblige persists even today. It's all a load of horseshit. The fact that there are occasionally good officers doesn't speak well of the process, but only the fact that some indviduals can still thrive in a rotten system. I could go on and on and on.
Back to your example. The military is supposedly an all volunteer force. That's cute, because, as your example indicates, it's only a volunteer force at the moment you volunteer to enter, because there's nothing voluntary about anything in the military. The people who do well in the military who grasp the nature of the bureaucracy quickly and who understand the implications of their contract. Trust me when I tell you this, 99.9% of enlisted personnel do not comprehend the exact implications of their enlistment contract. In fact, I think a competent lawyer could pursuasively argue the enlistment contract is largely predicated on presenting potentual recruits with false information and outright lies. Ergo... fraud. Because enlistees sign contracts, they would better be advised to consult an attorney before signing. Now... how many organizations do you see out there arguing for a "soldiers rights" movement where potential military recruits MUST have legal counsel to explain their contracts to them before they sign. See what I mean? Let me put this differently. Criminal suspects have more rights than military recruits. Let that sink in for a second. The guys who start to get wise to their contract are the reenlistee NCOs who start to figure out the ins-and-outs of their contract through a process of trial and error and using the NCO network. You can see plainly how this quickly breeds rampant cronyism.
My friend, this is the tip of the iceberg. This subject is too complex to cover in even a few posts. Could write a book on all the ways the military is fucked that many people, especially potential recruits, are simply not aware of. But I had to serve to understand it myself. It's too labyrintheen to just do some Google searches online and think you know it all. Thanks for taking time to read through this.
Thanks for that thoughtful response, agree with all but one aspect:
It is no doubt, as you say, in the US case, in the ADF it has been a matter for reform for some time to remove the inefficiencies of old ways continuing. It is always getting reviewed to try and de-formalize and remove as much of the old concretion as possible, to a culture that more reflects the one we have, which as I pointed out is not necessarily a good thing, when you have the wrong sort of people already in high command positions.
Perhaps the ADF has become more flexible about winding back old traditions just to make itself more attractive to females, gays and media 'vision-thing', or because it is so much smaller than the US mil, so it has less mass and can change its cultural direction easier. It also only formed in the late 1890s, for a new Federation in Canberra, at the turn of the century, and was first used in the Boer War, so was maybe a bit clear of the European and older US forces tradional background, in that respect.
So where you see a need for "radical" change, I see a need for careful changes by the right people, as you don't want it to be so rapid or open-minded that your brain falls out like some tranny lovin' General, or such.
Lol. Yeah, I keep glancing past that sort of stuff. You are right, a smaller force is more accountable and has more options at its disposal.
I think you misconstrue my use of the term "radical" for "social radicalism." Not really. Let me give you an example. The officer intake for the US Army is roughly 85% ROTC, 10% service academies and 5% OCS. I could be vastly wrong on the numbers, but the ratios are approximately correct. What this means is that the overwhelming majority of officers are either privileged types from service academies (you are required to get endorsement from a US senator in order to apply to an academy), or basically college loafers on military scholarships doing a 6-and-out. Either way, the military intake is overwhelming a two tier-system where enlisted enter through one path, and officers through another. I would scrap this two-tier system completely and demand that everyone enter as an enlisted soldier first. You should be required to serve a minimum of 2-3 years as an enlisted soldier before you are eligible for a nomination to become an officer. Leadership qualities should be demonstrated through military service record, not assumed based on having studied at Phi Beta Beerbong for 4 years. That's partly what I mean by "radical" reform.
Cheers!
Perhaps now it is becoming possible to restructure more in that respect and general education levels and the big-picture and better training are now ubiquitous in western countries.
What I think is a bit more concerning today though is the psychological immaturity of people who not only have no sense of dedication to the task, even if temporary, but struggle badly to accept certain ... hmmm ... human 'realities', so adjust poorly to reality, and are demoralized easily.
I would hope the US has review processes to eradicate non-performing junior officers but as another said above, they then fake their reports to chain of command to look better than they are. Yeah, well, I'd hope the 'Brass' are keen to that.
In the Marine Corp, don't know about the other branches, they now have time out cards. Time out cards!
Bullshit motherfucker. State your source or GTFO. There is no such thing as a fucking timeout card in the Marine Corps.
Kudos from an Isotope to an Element.