Not hardly, that's a US weapon, and one of its cool attributes is its precision on the target.

It's all a movie set illusion.

Man Will Never Fly Society

Not the exact thing Keith_J was speaking of, but think of this:

Your hand is a basic airfoil shape, palm is flat, fingers and back of hand bulge upward.

We have all stuck our arms out of a car and made it go up and down like a wing.  When held flat, you only felt the drag slightly pushing your hand backwards, and no lift, even though the air over your hand is going faster than air under your hand.  

When you turned your hand up or down, the change in angle of attack did two things:   Pushed backward on your arm really hard (drag), and made your arm swing up or down (lift), depending on which way you angled it.

Angle of Attack has more to do with flight than air pressure differences, the major part of pressure differences pertains to stall conditions, where the boundary layer separates from the top of the wing (very high pressure on bottom of wing, very low pressure on top of wing).   At that point, there is no more lift, only drag, and since the airfoil isn't working as a wing, the control surfaces aren't working as control surfaces, either.

The real answer is more complex, but lift is mostly pushing air down, which creates drag, at most basic, it's vector math, at most complicated, such as boundary layer, it's fluid dynamics.

Now think about all that; does it explain "how airfoils work", or "how airfoils are used"?

I'll answer that, those are charts that describe the behavior of 2D airfoils in isolation, and not as part of a wing.  They are a first step in the application of an airfoil that describe the tail end of "how they work" without understanding of the physical mechanisms.  The hilarious part is that you didn't post a single plot of pressure distribution at any angle of attack over the section to support your argument.

Describing the flow over an airfoil or wing is much more complicated that saying, "derp, it's pressure, duh".  We have to look at the flow in forward of the leading edge, along the chord, and aft of the trailing edge of a 2D airfoil, and spanwise flow along a 3D wing, then modifications to the flow caused by leading edge or trailing edge devices or spoilers and drag brakes installed between the leading edge and trailing edge.

No one will argue that their is a pressure distribution over airfoils, no matter whether they are thick or thin (those have definitions), have a practically zero thickness ratio (a sail, a paper airplane, single surface hang gliders and ultralights), camber or no camber.  But for whatever reason, the momentum mechanism is never discussed in airfoils 101, and that is a mistake.

The lift on a wing is caused by momentum and direction of the airflow spilling off the trailing edge.

Picture two airplanes of equal weight, one with a short fat wing and one with a long narrow wing of equal area (we don't care about spanwise taper and so on at this point), flying at identical speeds.

Now picture circles circumscribing each wing, consider their respective areas, and imagine the amount (the volume and mass) of the air flowing through each circle.  It's obvious that the mass of air flowing through the larger circle is much greater (by the square of the span) than through the small circle around the short wing.  The lift is the same (same airplane weight, same speed), so what is happening at the wings?

Make a sketch, calculate the area in each circle, note how the diameter (span) squared influences the area.

Now, since this is GD science and we're already well into tl;dr territory, we'll jump ahead a little; while operating these airplanes, we noticed that the drag of the longer wing is less than the short wing!  Hmmm, interesting, eh?

Think about this a second; the longer wing produces the same lift as the short wing with less drag, so it appears to be "working" less hard to produce that lift!  Whilst investigating the reason for the lower drag of the long wing, we also noticed that we could break the drag down into two broad sources, one that appeared to be related only to the cross section geometry of the wing (corrected for Reynolds numbers for you pedantics), and another that appeared to be related to the creation of lift!  We'll call that "induced drag", the drag caused by production of lift, and the part caused by the shape we'll call "profile drag" (for now).

So, the long wing produces the same lift with less drag, and we notice that it influences a much greater volume of air passing by, so we look a little closer and we discover that the air flowing off the trailing edge of the long wing departs at an angle to the chord that is less than from the short wing.  "Walla" , we realize the longer wing produces less drag to produce the same lift because it doesn't have to turn the air flow over an angle as great as the short wing.  We also realize at this point that the momentum (direction, speed, and mass flow integrated over the span) of the air coming off the trailing edge of the wing equals the lift required to support the airplane.

In the 2D world, we draw theoretical airfoils and then calculate theoretical chordwise speeds, pressure distributions, and behavior of the boundary layer.  David Bernoulli's principle is merely the jumping in place, it's barely a good start to the problem but does serve as a simple explanation of the basic mechanism.  Mostly.  We also know that there is not a 2D airfoil in the universe that can develop lift!  [Using the lift equation, the area is zero, so the lift has to be zero.)

In the real world, we attempt to measure the behavior of 2D airfoils by testing short 3D wings in wind tunnels, and then correcting all the effects that cause error (3D airfoils, tunnel wall effects, Reynolds Number, Mach Number, compressibility, and a zillion other factors) to learn how well our 2D estimation methods match the real world as best we can measure.  It's very important to understand the magnitude of the errors at this stage.

Also in the real world, we build airplanes with 3D airfoils (wings) with characteristics adjusted to produce desired characteristics for the design flight regime.  We're shocked when we learn how unimportant all those airfoil shapes we fretted about choosing for our light airplane design turn out to be when considering performance, and learn that damn near any airfoily looking cross section shape will work about as well as the next one as long as they are thick enough for adequate structure inside, and that the planform shape dominates the airplane's performance.  (Sailplanes are a little more critical since we need to really squeeze the profile drag part of the equation, too.)

What we've learned is that 2D airfoils are theoretical constructions that exhibit distributions of speed and pressure along their chords but produce zero lift.  

3D airfoils, or wings, produce lift by directing the momentum of the air flow across the surface at an angle to the chord at the trailing edge to produce the force that lifts the airplane.  The chordwise distribution of pressure is interesting, but as long as it is well behaved it's pretty much of secondary interest if the airfoil is remotely suitable for the design flight mission.  In the 3D world, we are at least as interested in the spanwise flow of air and how it behaves at the wing-fuselage intersection and at the tips.

When discussing "airfoils" it is critical to be clear about whether the airfoil is 2D or 3D.

Your ideas are incomplete.  Separate purely 2D from 3D behavior, it's that simple.  

A 2D airfoil is a theoretical construct, and when incorporated into a 3D wing, the characteristics are significantly different; the lift curve slope changes, the maximum lift, moment, and drag coefficients all change, and not to the better.  The main purpose of testing short wings with either significant end plates or intersecting the tunnel walls is an attempt to produce a "semi infinite" span wing to approach 2D characteristics.  You'll also find that increasing aspect ratio of real wings tends to cause the airfoil characteristics to approach the 2D ideal.  Naturally, tapering the wing introduces another detail that modifies the airfoil behavior by reducing the Reynolds Number toward the wing tips.

I didn't see a single comment in this thread about the (incorrect) momentum transfer theory, i.e., Newtonian theory, of the airflow impacting on the lower surface of an airfoil (wing) to produce lift until you brought it up.

I made no comment about camber and lift at zero angle of attack because it was not necessary.  I already stated that the "Bernoulli effect" is a simplification to help understand why the pressure changes over a curved surface, but it's just a place to start.