the BREAKING NEWS debate thread

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 05:37pm

jegs2 wrote:
Crazy_Vasey wrote:I can back that up. There was a couple of articles in UK newspapers saying that Iraq had been buying up replicas of British army uniforms for exactly the purpose that has been described here of executing surrendering troops.
I heard the same thing on Fox News.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/890988_asp.htm?0cv=CB10

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-03-26 05:39pm

jegs2 wrote:
jegs2 wrote:
Crazy_Vasey wrote:I can back that up. There was a couple of articles in UK newspapers saying that Iraq had been buying up replicas of British army uniforms for exactly the purpose that has been described here of executing surrendering troops.
I heard the same thing on Fox News.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/890988_asp.htm?0cv=CB10

Careful Jegs....that wasn't on Al-Jazeera or Soviet news services so the article is suspect.

GUTB · Post by **GUTB** » 2003-03-26 06:09pm

The story is probably true -- thus far, Saddam's fedayeen are displayed no short measure of imagination, and doing something like this is certainly not beyond them.

However, it's all a stupid side-show and a circus clown act.

3-4 Coalition divisions does not concern itself with the antics of a few fedayeen, although they have become a pest. What they are worried about are regular Iraqi forces in front of them denying them the Euphrates, such as the Iraqi 3rd Army Corps and 45th ID. And now this line is being stiffened by what appears to be another division comming out of Bagdhad. The Coalition faield to punch through the first time, and will probably try again but this time in conjunction with whatever force can be mustered from the North attacking.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 06:20pm

GUTB wrote:The story is probably true -- thus far, Saddam's fedayeen are displayed no short measure of imagination, and doing something like this is certainly not beyond them.

However, it's all a stupid side-show and a circus clown act.

3-4 Coalition divisions does not concern itself with the antics of a few fedayeen, although they have become a pest. What they are worried about are regular Iraqi forces in front of them denying them the Euphrates, such as the Iraqi 3rd Army Corps and 45th ID. And now this line is being stiffened by what appears to be another division comming out of Bagdhad. The Coalition faield to punch through the first time, and will probably try again but this time in conjunction with whatever force can be mustered from the North attacking.

Tactical patience, coupled with setting of conditions using and synchronizing all BOS will achieve the desired affect for Coalition forces. Saddam's regime was using its forces wisely ... until now.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 06:28pm

So we need the 4th Infantry Division. Big deal.

The Iraqis aren't about to launch a counterstroke. They can't. It says a great deal that their attempts to repulse us are by irregulars and suicide troops rather than the actual military itself. Sure our understrength units are now facing flank attacks, but they're nothing more thorns in the side of a giant. Not to mention that by the first week of April - assuming that Baghdad hasn't already fallen -, the 4th Infantry will be on hand to provide real rear-area security.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-03-26 06:56pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Embedded reporters report under a set of coalition rules. From CNN's webite:

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops. Among the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not to disclose sensitive operational details. CNN's policy is to not report information that puts operational security at risk.

All it says is they have an agreement not to disclose sensitive operation details, it says nothing about lying. If something is sensitive to an operation, it will not even be mentioned.

These set of rules are used by the coalition to control the flow and type of information these reporters can make. In essense, embedded reporters are the middle man, a mouth piece to the coalition. Who in turn filter information to a degree were we need organisations like Al Jazeera to force the coalition to reveal their hand. Note that news of the 5 captured soldiers was broken by Al Jazeera.

That hardly means they lie, which is what you are accusing them of. Also it is usually policy to informs the families of those who are KIA, or MIA before informing the world. SO yes, Al Jazeera does not have to follow this policy...the fact that they got it out first doesn't mean a whole lot.

Proof? So?

Well www.iraqwar.ru isn't coming up for me at the moment so we'll have to wait till later.

Reread what I wrote.

Basically you are attempting to measure the accuracy of the news coming from different sources and you believe that www.iraqwar.ru and various others are the most accurate of all because they don't have as much of a reason to lie.

I disagree with this because you are assuming to know their agenda, when in fact you really know next to nothing.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-03-26 07:02pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
2. GRE obviously don't want to inform the US how they capture radio intercepts so they posted some bullshit which would fool 99% of the people ...doesn't mean the actual reports are phony too. They've been vindicated numerous times.

Which times have they been vindicated?

Anyway.....the stories could very well be lies because simply reporting what other news agencys report is not a very good way of convincing people that you broke through US security.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 07:15pm

Stravo wrote:
jegs2 wrote:
jegs2 wrote: I heard the same thing on Fox News.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/890988_asp.htm?0cv=CB10
Careful Jegs....that wasn't on Al-Jazeera or Soviet news services so the article is suspect.

If you're referring to me, please take down the towering Colossus of Rhodes strawman.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-26 07:44pm

GUTB wrote:At this time, it is safe to call the Coalition assault completely, utterly, and without expcetion FUBAR.

You are bombarded hourly about "pockets" of resistence, and how this or that group of Fedayeen are tryign to trick Coalition forces, and about militia ambushes. You are given a picture of Coalition forces rolling inexonerably towards Bagdhad, casually crushing minor resistence where it happens to flare up. But let's engage our heads for just a moment, shall we?

We hear the same things in Afghanistan. I hardly see that that attack was a FUBAR.

What ELSE are we hearing about CONSTANTLY? Basra, Nasirya, Jafar, Fao, and Umm Qasr. We have been told again and again how Coalition forces are in control, etc, but it is just plainly a lie. Look at a map; the Iraqis made their first stand at the Euphrates, and have rebuffed ALL attempts of Coalition to take it. [/quote]

No they haven't. The 3-7 has already crossed it, and was brought supplies during the night.

THAT is the hard, unflattering truth not being proclaimed at the press briefings. And now we have a division's worth of Iraqi armor leaving Basra and heading south, not one but TWO large Iraqi convoys heading out of Bagdhad, presumably to stiffen up their line at the Euphrates.

That isn't happening, at least according to the sources that I use.

The weak, lightly-armed 3 or 4 divisions the Coalition has in Iraq is suffering from logistics and morale issues -- they have become completely mired down, and generally not doing anything productive for the time being. The US 3rd ID ran up against the Iraqi 3rd Army Corps and decided that their run was over until re-inforcments arrive. The 4th ID is AWOL. The Marines are doing their level best to pretend they are an armor division and not pulling off. The Northern front is making noises and weak flailing motions and promises to start up -- eventually. And now as of couple of days ago the White House is warning everybody that it wasn't going to be an easy or short war, etc etc.

I'm not prepared to make a determination on that, however I do not think that there are substantial morale or logistical issues.

So yes, it is FUBAR.

I don't think that the White House was ever expecting the war to be any shorter or longer than the one that they have. They had been saying 30 days long before the first Americans crossed the border, and they're saying thirty days now. I don't see how that represents a substantial alteration in policy to indicate that the war has not been going well for the Coalition forces.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 09:01pm

jegs2 wrote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vympel:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... q_basra_dc

Basra uprising reports false?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But correspondents in Basra for Qatar's Al-Jazeera television and for Abu Dhabi Television reported on Wednesday they had seen no signs of unrest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm, some real objective sources there....

I refer you to the Crediblity of Al-Jazeera thread- I fail to see why reporters actually in Basra know less than the British who are on the outside.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 09:12pm

Vympel wrote:I refer you to the Crediblity of Al-Jazeera thread- I fail to see why reporters actually in Basra know less than the British who are on the outside.

It isn't that they know less than other reporters, but one could hardly deny that they don't have a political agenda that could taint their reporting on what they do know... much like you say Fox News does...

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-26 09:14pm

Vympel wrote:So far, these reports smacks of propaganda-some may scoff but I remember the babies in incubators story from GW2 very well..

Hate to beat the past, Vympel, but could you clarify. I think I know what you're talking about but I'm somewhat confused.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 09:21pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Hate to beat the past, Vympel, but could you clarify. I think I know what you're talking about but I'm somewhat confused.

The Kuwaitis PR firm (Hills & Knowlton- whoose other prestigious clients included such human rights bastions as Turkey and Indonesia) in GW2 (this is GW3 right now) thought up a story of Iraqis tossing babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and taking the incubators back from Iraq- the story was delivered by some Kuwaiti girl, and the entire nation was enraged.

Fortunately, it never happened- she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US, hadn't been in Kuwait at the time, and the nurses in the hospital (she claimed to have seen it personall because she was a volunteer there) emphatically denied that they had ever seen her before in their entire lives. She was trained by Hills and Knowlton.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-27 01:31am

Master of Ossus wrote:I don't think that the White House was ever expecting the war to be any shorter or longer than the one that they have. They had been saying 30 days long before the first Americans crossed the border, and they're saying thirty days now. I don't see how that represents a substantial alteration in policy to indicate that the war has not been going well for the Coalition forces.

The Pentagon has publicly admitted that it underestimated the Iraqi forces, particularly Uday's SS. I'd say it's a foregone conclusion that they expected it to be easier than it is. That doesn't necessarily mean it's FUBAR, but it means that a lot of hot-air optimism from before the war is quite clearly wrong. One American politician (I'll see if I can track down his name) commented before the war began that never before has an army gone into a war with such confidence that the other side would change sides.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-27 02:06am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:GUTB: Here's another, "it'll all be over by Christmas."

DONT say that!!! remember what happned the last time people said that? that phrase has a curse on it, it is tapu damnit!

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-27 09:38am

http://www.fair.org/activism/scuds.html

From Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 09:43am

Iraqis must fight, or their children will be slaughtered:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82310,00.html

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 09:46am

British destroy Iraqi column:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82310,00.html

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 09:48am

Iraqi troops in civilian clothes taking over homes:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82310,00.html

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-27 10:20am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Embedded reporters report under a set of coalition rules. From CNN's webite:

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops. Among the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not to disclose sensitive operational details. CNN's policy is to not report information that puts operational security at risk.
All it says is they have an agreement not to disclose sensitive operation details, it says nothing about lying. If something is sensitive to an operation, it will not even be mentioned.

The point of the quote was it's the coalition who control information, and they've been lying from day one. Why trust a source of news who's forced CNN to retract stories? I don't trust CNN, or any other source on its own.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: These set of rules are used by the coalition to control the flow and type of information these reporters can make. In essense, embedded reporters are the middle man, a mouth piece to the coalition. Who in turn filter information to a degree were we need organisations like Al Jazeera to force the coalition to reveal their hand. Note that news of the 5 captured soldiers was broken by Al Jazeera.

That hardly means they lie, which is what you are accusing them of.

You saying the coalition has not exploited these rules to suppress, control, and fabricate information used by CNN?

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: Reread what I wrote.
Basically you are attempting to measure the accuracy of the news coming from different sources and you believe that www.iraqwar.ru and various others are the most accurate of all because they don't have as much of a reason to lie.

I never said that. I said I assign www.iraqwar.ru the most credibility, but I never said I measure accuracy on "reasons to lie". To make it clear, I measure accuracy by finding then reading the same story on as many websites as possible. I compare, think about things, figure out who would want to lie more than the other guy, than draw a conclusion.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-27 10:21am

Jegs stop, wrong thread.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 10:47am

Urf, hmmm, some mod move'em....

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-27 11:35am

The Russian sources are chock full of value-laden words.

We're talking about nothing more than a comprehensive denial of every single bit of reporting coming out of CNN, FOX, or the BBC. That doesn't jive with me.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-27 11:49am

Axis Kast wrote:The Russian sources are chock full of value-laden words.

We're talking about nothing more than a comprehensive denial of every single bit of reporting coming out of CNN, FOX, or the BBC. That doesn't jive with me.

Piss off.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-27 12:14pm

What a great comeback. You've sure convinced me. Idiot.

No matter what your position, I think you've got to acknowledge that the Russian sources are painting an extremely bleak picture. All they seem to be doing is commenting on how CNN, FOX, and BBC are wrong. It's just discussion of how badly - as opposed to how well - the action in Iraq is going. They approach it from an opposite angle and then offer nothing but analysis painted by colorful words demeaning the Coalition approach.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

the BREAKING NEWS debate thread

Children Threatened

British Tanks

Yet More Violations of Rules of War