Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

US drops 'mother of all bombs' (not nuclear) on Afghanistan

I think he meant like a big motherfucking battle.

You're right, it means a "mighty battle" - according to this former UN translator, it was translated as if it was a quirky turn of phrase back in 1991 when it was really just standard usage.

Besides its literal meaning, "umm" -- when followed by another noun -- is often equivalent to English words like "chief," "main" or "principal" (as in "mother lode") and is used in quite prosaic contexts where a literal translation would be absurd.

Thus, "umm al-watan" (mother of the homeland) means "metropolis," "ummahat al-hawadith" (mothers of events) means "major events," and "ummahat as-suhuf" (mothers of newspapers) means "leading newspapers." The Arabic phrase literally meaning "mother of battles" (umm al-ma'arik) can best be translated "the great battle," "the mighty battle," perhaps "the decisive battle."

'Mother of Battles' Mistranslates Arabic
 
I hear Trump is planning a new twist on New York's Easter Parade. This is what people think it may look like

th
 
it is the biggest non-nuclear bomb IN THEIR ARSENAL. not ever, just in their arsenal.

The first news report on the radio that I woke-up to this morning ran with the "The biggest non-nuclear bomb EVER used in combat angle so it appears some people are taken-in!
 
Mother of all bombs....?

This item is about 4/500Kg lighter than the Grand Slam deployed by the RAF in WW2!
The first news report on the radio that I woke-up to this morning ran with the "The biggest non-nuclear bomb EVER used in combat angle so it appears some people are taken-in!
How heavy it is is irrelevant unless it fails to go off and you want to weigh it in at the scrappie.

In any sensible discussion, yield defines whether it's the biggest ever or not. Grand Slam was pitiful in comparison to this stuff.
 
In any sensible discussion, yield defines whether it's the biggest ever or not

Where this is concerned, I don't think there is much by way of sensible discussion going-on TBH, and as psychological impact was one of the main design criteria for this weapon, then yes size does trump actual yield. :(
 
Trump fans on the twitter have been wanking themselves blind at the sheer size and manliness of it, take that Isis america's back etc.
Or BBC journalists. The report I saw was basically "It's big, really big and really fucking loud. It's a deterrent. A show of force. You hear that Kim they'll drop it on your head if you're a bad boy. It's fucking big but only destroys tunnels and bad people. This is it on the ground, this is the plane that carries it and this is the pretty bang from a distance. I don't think were missing any other perspective on this." The BBC report was a little less subtle and ended most sentences with the phrase "Mother of all bombs" in the voiceover style of an American action film trailer.
 
They say biggest bomb based on the biggest blast radius (aside from a nuke).

Apparently it has a blast radius of a mile but they assure us no civilians were hurt.

Did they put up a mile square of police tape to make sure no civilians wandered in?

Or do they mean no Americans were hurt. Any Afghan bombed must have been a terrorist otherwise why would they be there? Under a bomb meant for terrorists that is.
 
Could be a good way to clear some space for affordable public housing in Mayfair - drop it at a time of year when Russian oligarchs are elsewhere and nobody would even have to get hurt.
 
Back
Top Bottom