the BREAKING NEWS debate thread

[K. A. Pital]

Nathan F
It's basically because idiotic claims are not appreciated, like the one I'm Stalin's protector or Saddam's protector.
FOI.

So, I guess that those POWs who were beaten within an inch of their life back in the first Gulf War would tell me that Saddam follows the Geneva Convention to a tee.

Stop being so awfully ignorant of time and space. It's 2003, not 1991. This time Iraq has NO hope if it fucks with anyone or anything.

Dude, seriously, the man has gassed his own PEOPLE, has built torture chambers for the hell of it

Yes, he did.

shoots POWs

Now? BS. Just BS. And Tony Blair said this BS aloud, luckily the family members and the comrades of the dead refuted this IDIOTIC claim.

and rules by fear.

In his own small country.

How can you sit there and tell me that he actually cares about the Geneva Convention?

Easily. If he cares about his f-ing life, he will follow the Convention, and in case he will run to France no one could accuse him of war crimes in this very war.

[jegs2]

Just saw that Rumsfeld accuses Syria of smuggling NVGs etc to Iraq. So much for Russia then.

Russia would stand to lose much less than would Syria. Rumsfeld called what Syria was doing a "hostile act." My guess is that those in charge of Syria will take that statement seriously in light of what we're doing to Iraq, and they'll back off quick, fast, and in a hurry.

[jegs2]

On the attack of a Coalition TCP by suicide bombers earlier, here are my observations:

While Fox News may be labeling the attack as a terrorist attack -- I doubt the US military is. It was an attack against a legitimate military target. The incident will probably trigger a change in how TCP's are set up and operated. One method may now be to force all occupants to dismount their vehicles a fixed amount of space from the TCP and approach the soldiers with their hands held high or behind their heads -- any twitching earning a couple of bullets to their chest, and certaininly failure to dismount leading to the destruction of both vehicle and occupants. In short, TTP's will be changed IOT deal with the threat.

[Axis Kast]

Perhaps you haven't noticed, Stas, but Saddam Hussein has no hope in any case. Right now, one of his best gambits is to shoot American or British prisoners in hopes we'll find the affair to gristly, the war too difficult, and back slowly off.

He has nothing to lose.

[Nathan F]

Stas, just shut up, you keep making yourself look stupid.

Saddam sees the end is in sight and the only thing he can do is go out with a bang and take as many people as he can with him.

[Vympel]

Saw a great segment on Sky News (the Australian cable news one) one Iraqi/Coalition propaganda so far.

Highlights:

- the downed Coalition airman in Baghdad
- the Apache downed with what looks like a 98K from a really old looking farmer
- the fall of Basra
- the fall of Nasriyah (3 times, no less)
- the fall of Um Qasr (where, if we applied Rumsfeld's peculiar 'reasoning', the US administration has been decapitated, because even he didn't know that it was nowhere near captured at the time- amazing that the Iraqis knew more than him)
- the death/ wounding of Saddam
- the Basra uprising

Of course, the reason why there is so much more Coalition BS listed is because of the 24 hours reporting- no time to confirm anything, although in some cases that was obviously no excuse (see fall of Um Qasr).

[K. A. Pital]

Nathan F

Saddam sees the end is in sight and the only thing he can do is go out with a bang and take as many people as he can with him.

In this case, he is an idiot. I don't think all ruthless dictators are idiots (the one close to it is Hitler), but Saddam may also be one...

[Nathan F]

Nathan F

Saddam sees the end is in sight and the only thing he can do is go out with a bang and take as many people as he can with him.

In this case, he is an idiot. I don't think all ruthless dictators are idiots (the one close to it is Hitler), but Saddam may also be one...

Finally you see it.

No, not all dictators are idiots, and, Saddam isn't one either. You would have to be somewhat intelligent to keep in power as long as he has.

Evil and sadistic, yes, idiotic, no.

That is the reason I believe he is gonna want to go out with a bang.

[K. A. Pital]

Nathan F

Evil and sadistic, yes, idiotic, no.

Agree. I still think it would be more useful for him to stick with Geneva, since in that case, if UN will accept USA actions as illegal agression, and Saddam escapes, he can defend himself more easily.

[Nathan F]

Nathan F

Evil and sadistic, yes, idiotic, no.

Agree. I still think it would be more useful for him to stick with Geneva, since in that case, if UN will accept USA actions as illegal agression, and Saddam escapes, he can defend himself more easily.

It would be more useful for him to follow the convention, but, then again, he sees that his days are numbered, and he is already a war criminal, so, he figures that he might as well go out in infamy.

[Coyote]

The Iraqis have clearly learned from history-- the only way for a small nation to come close to victory in war with a major power is through drawing out the conflict and using guerrilla tactics that produce a high innocent body count. Packing a truckload of refugees with explosives (for example-- the refugees may not even know it) is one way to do it.

Worked in Vietnam, Chechnya, USSR-Afghanistan, Palestine, etc... We'll see more of this as the troops get conditioned to shoot first and ask later.

[BoredShirtless]

Shove your unsubstantiated claims of "nothing but a CNN basher". Provide some proof or fuck off.

Words like “finally starting to” and “more coherent and adequate” imply a change of position. The Russians are just covering all their bases – even if they’ve been forced to admit that not all facets of the campaign in Iraq are going badly. That doesn’t however make up for the fact that 90% of www.iraqwar.ru is written by somebody whose obvious intention is to paint poorly the prosecution of this war.

While these reports do sometimes gloat over coalition failures, they've proved far more accurate when compared to the retractions of misinformation from the mainstream media [although the mainstream media have gotten a lot better].

Axis, I asked for some proof. You gave nothing but more opinions. No examples, no quotes, nothing to back your argument up. You read words like finally starting to and more coherent and adequate as the Russians "covering their bases", I see it as a reflection of the coalitions changing war plans and adaptability. I have proof: the coalition ARE changing their tactics. You have no proof. Bring it to the table, or fuck off with your paranoid bullshit.

But you refuse to follow anything but 5 news organisations, all of which are from pro-war countries (USA, Australia and Britain). No fallacy, you need to grow a pair.

That’s right. I refuse to follow – yet that doesn’t mean I refuse to keep my eyes open.

I do from time to time take articles or commentary from al-Jazeera, the French television channels, or other sources. Hell, I even stop by www.iraqwar.ru every now and again just to see the latest bit of propagandic speculation.

Can you shut up with your inconsistent labeling? If you want to label that Russian site as propagandic speculation, label every other news organisation that way too.

I love the way you've changed this from "I mistrust foreign news" to "just that Russian site". Priceless.

But I don’t mistrust foreign news. I do watch or read the BBC output. I just mistrust the Russian coverage – and that of al-Jazeera as well.

This was you about a week ago:
Why do I mistrust the foreign sources? For the same reason I deny that the French have covered this war properly. Whereas American news is admittadly biased in favor of the war and paints a largely optimistic picture, the French media is consistently bashing our invasion of Iraq and has done nothing but played up the pesimistic.
From http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 702#393702

So what changed your mind Axis? Why do you trust foreign sources, when a week ago you didn't?

Link?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82285,00.html

This article cites no evidence, only speculation from an uncorroborated report, of undetermined reliablility. Is that good enough for you?

You get the Internet right? http://english.aljazeera.net/ You'll have to be patient if you find the courage to visit, they're down more often than up as far as I can see [chicken shits like you who can't hack different opinions are brining the site down].

Chickenshits like me? Upset over different opinions? I’m not the one getting all bent out of shape here.

What I'm getting pissed off about is keeping up with your inconsistent arguments. I've got no problems with different opinions.

Relate the timing and content of an article published months before this war on 91 Gulf War Syndrome, to that sources coverage of this war. If you can do that in a meaningful way, I'll paint your house for nothing.

Coverage of war must be comprehensive.

I agree. But those 91 Gulf War articles came out before this war started, before war was declared. So wasn't war coverage.

[Axis Kast]

The Russians claim we’ve lost somewhere around eighty helicopters in Iraq thus far. IraqWar.ru is a ridiculous farce. As I’ve said before, it’s nothing but a comprehensive denial of CNN’s more flowery outlook with a few outrageous stories thrown – none of them reported by other networks.

Watch CNN and you’ll believe we fought a quick, decisive war. Read IraqWar.ru and you’ll assume we prevailed by the skin of our teeth. The only difference is that CNN doesn’t claim to be using GRU intelligence and that IraqWar.ru makes spurious claims of huge Coalition losses.

So what changed your mind Axis? Why do you trust foreign sources, when a week ago you didn't?

I already told you – I watch the BBC. That was an error.

This article cites no evidence, only speculation from an uncorroborated report, of undetermined reliablility. Is that good enough for you?

That’s good enough for me when the Pentagon is now saying Iraq has probably killed our troops in their custody. Hell, they found torture chambers in al-Nasariyeh according to FOX and BBC.

And isn’t the Russian network speculation as well? It’s nothing but their own version of analysis, king.

I agree. But those 91 Gulf War articles came out before this war started, before war was declared. So wasn't war coverage.

They did, yes. But the topic also deserved a rehashing. It got two. The French coverage came out on the bottom.

[jegs2]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/ ... index.html

The above is a story on 3ID soldiers firing on a van, whose driver would not stop, despite warning shots and shots into the engine compartment. The soldiers opened fire in earnest, when the van kept coming toward the checkpoint, killing women and children who were aboard. It appears as though all pertinent ROE were followed. Perhaps they should put up Arabic stop signs...

[Nathan F]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/ ... index.html

The above is a story on 3ID soldiers firing on a van, whose driver would not stop, despite warning shots and shots into the engine compartment. The soldiers opened fire in earnest, when the van kept coming toward the checkpoint, killing women and children who were aboard. It appears as though all pertinent ROE were followed. Perhaps they should put up Arabic stop signs...

A round into the engine is usually a good signal of 'stop'. What the heck were those civvies thinking?

I mean, I am sorry the kids were killed, but I really am not that sorry for the driver. How much more plain can you get?

[K. A. Pital]

Nathan F
Oh of course, the civilians are guilty of being shot to death by the troops... Wow... weird logic out there.
Try to react immediately upon hearing the "stop" signal. Because the guy didn't even have the time: the soldiers opened fire immediately.
They were a bit nervous after suicide attack, sure. So it surely makes killing civs a normal thing?
Yeah, I think even if GWB drops a-bomb on Baghdad, you will still say: "It's their fault".

[Batman]

Nathan F
Try to react immediately upon hearing the "stop" signal. Because the guy didn't even have the time: the soldiers opened fire immediately.
(

And of course you have evidence of the soldiers firing ' immediately', right?
Because I sure as hell don't get that from the article.

Oh of course, the civilians are guilty of being shot to death by the troops

Well, when they ignore the 'stop' signal, ignore the warning shots, AND ignore a shot to the engine, in this case, yes, they are.

[Vympel]

What a fiasco- women and children killed.

Questions:

1- The driver was supposedly given 'repeated warnings' to stop. Did he/she understand them?

2- Warning shots were fired. The driver could've freaked out and gunned it.

3- The shot in the engines would've made things worse. Oh fuck, they're firing on me!

4- US infantry think they're about to be blown to kingdom come, open fire.

[K. A. Pital]

Vympel
I think it went so quick that the guy was not even able to understand what's going on.
"Oh shit, they..." - and an abrupt end.

[Batman]

Vympel
I think it went so quick that the guy was not even able to understand what's going on.
"Oh shit, they..." - and an abrupt end.

And you have come to this conclusion because of...what again?

While Vympel's scenario may very well be correct, your assumption that the civilians would have died anyway because they were not given
time to do anything is NOT supported by the article.

[K. A. Pital]

Batman
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/pa ... teid=50143
Another version of events.
Both the CNN and Mirror are full of crappy propaganda. Still, since I'm in the AWC, I prefere the Mirror.

[Batman]

Stas-thanx.

Whoa.

Troops were told that if those in cars or trucks do not obey orders within five seconds they can open fire.

Is that 'Stop!'-'5sec-warning shot'-5sec-'fire' or 'Stop warningshot if 5sec over fire'?

That's not a lot of time to react for either side.

OTOH, how far out are those vehicles ordered to stop? A car can cover a lot of ground in 5 seconds, and a bomb doesn't need to get all that close to kill a man

[K. A. Pital]

Batman
Well, a bomb has to be pretty close to kill, if it's an ordinary explosive like the one used in the kamikaze car. Still, the concussion wave can kill from 6-7 meters.
About the car's speed - I doubt seriously it was going fast. I suppose the car is ordered to stop at the distance where voice can be heard.

[Batman]

Batman
Well, a bomb has to be pretty close to kill, if it's an ordinary explosive like the one used in the kamikaze car. Still, the concussion wave can kill from 6-7 meters.

About the car's speed - I doubt seriously it was going fast. I suppose the car is ordered to stop at the distance where voice can be heard.

I wasn't talking about that specific incident so much as what went into the 5-second decision. A car CAN cover a lot of ground in that time, even if this one didn't.

[Zoink]

What a fiasco- women and children killed.

Questions:
......

I would add: did they actually give ample warning, or are they covering their asses?