Surprise! the market explosion lie

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 03:57am

Just today I heard Jack Straw get up and say it was 'increasingly probable' that the controversial market explosion was caused by the Iraqis rather than the US/UK (which I denounced as bald faced bullshitting the first time I heard it). And now we have the proof that they were indeed, full of shit:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... ory=393066

Like I said when I first called it bullshit- they'd get a lot more fucking respect if they didn't lie their asses off and make them look just as bad as the Iraqis. Quite frankly, the "good guys" get out of jail free card bit is getting a little bit tired.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 04:04am

I should also add that at no point have the US/UK presetned any evidence whatosever to point to Iraqi culpability in the explosion (hence my reference to the good guys get out jail free card).

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-02 08:19am

Well, shit.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-04-02 09:11am

I blame this mostly on media. The U.S. military couldn't know for sure it was theirs. Sure, an unaccounted for explosion could be caused by Iraq, sure the U.S. were hoping it wasn't theirs, but its the darn media that pays so much attention to it.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-02 09:40am

All of this from a shell fragment that only Mr. Fisk has seen?
I'll believe it when I see independent (pardon the pun) confirmation.

And by 'independent', I mean someone like a BBC, AP, or Reuters reporter, not someone from 'indymedia.org'.
Pardon me if I'm somewhat mistrustful of the source, given his stands against almost everything it seems the US does.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 10:39am

Glocksman wrote:All of this from a shell fragment that only Mr. Fisk has seen?
I'll believe it when I see independent (pardon the pun) confirmation.

And by 'independent', I mean someone like a BBC, AP, or Reuters reporter, not someone from 'indymedia.org'.
Pardon me if I'm somewhat mistrustful of the source, given his stands against almost everything it seems the US does.

Do you have anything else to bring to the table other than fallacious reasoning, and calling the Independent and Robert Fisk, one of the most well-known Middle East journalits, 'indie media'?

Robert Fisk is Britain’s most highly decorated foreign correspondent. He has received the British International Journalist of the Year award seven times, most recently in 1995 and 1996. His specialty is the Middle East, where he has spent the last twenty-three years. Currently the Beirut correspondent for the London Independent, Fisk has covered the Iranian revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, the Persian Gulf war, and the conflict in Algeria. He is the author of Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War (Atheneum, 1990), and his reporting from Lebanon has brought him international attention. He was the one who broke the story about the Israeli shelling of the U.N. compound in Qana, Lebanon, in 1996.

Fisk visited Madison, Wisconsin, in April to give two lectures on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. He brought with him film footage of the Qana shelling, as well as footage of an Israeli bombing of a Lebanese ambulance carrying fourteen people. He showed a film he made about Palestinians who had lost their homes when Israel became a state. He also showed interviews with Jews who lost family members in Nazi concentration camps, and he went to Auschwitz to show where the Holocaust took place. In one of his lectures, he made a special point of taking on those who deny the truth of the Holocaust.

Robert Fisk, a world renowned Middle East correspondent for London's Independent, currently resides in Beirut. Mr. Fisk received a Ph.D in Political Science from Trinity College, Dublin in 1985 and an Honorary Doctorate of Literature and Journalism from the University of Lancaster, England. He was The Times Belfast correspondent from 1971 to 1975, and its Middle East correspondent from 1976 to 1987. Fisk has covered the recent conflict in Northern Ireland, Israeli invasions of Lebanon, the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Gulf War, wars in Bosnia and Algeria, NATO war with Yugoslavia, and the Palestinian uprisings. Fisk was the winner of the Amnesty International UK Press Awards in 1998 for his reports from Algeria and in 2000 for his articles on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. He was awarded the John Hopkins SIAS-CIBA prize for international journalism. Fisk is theauthor of three books: The Point of No Return: The Strike which Broke the British in Ulster (1975), In Time of War: Ireland, Ulster, and the Price of Neutrality (1982, 1983), and Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War (1990, 1992). Most recently Fisk contributed a chapter to Iraq Under Siege: the Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War (2000).

Guess you thought he was some 20 year old marxist punk or something ....

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-04-02 10:45am

So it's "shit" when the Coalition holds off acknowledging responsibility in an attack it can't yet confirm was actually its own fault?

This isn't really a huge issue. So you were told that we didn't hit the market and you believe otherwise? I don't see why this tarnishes the US/UK reputation considering that most of our munitions have fallen on target and that no nation is going to admit it made a mistake until absolutely certain.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 10:52am

Axis Kast wrote:So it's "shit" when the Coalition holds off acknowledging responsibility in an attack it can't yet confirm was actually its own fault?

No, they explicitly said it was the Iraqis. There's a difference.

This isn't really a huge issue. So you were told that we didn't hit the market and you believe otherwise? I don't see why this tarnishes the US/UK reputation considering that most of our munitions have fallen on target and that no nation is going to admit it made a mistake until absolutely certain.

Moot- see above. It's quite obvious that the reason they came up with such a lame excuse as 'the Iraqis did it' (saying it was 'increasingly clear'- how they didn't explain, of course) was because the incident received so much attention. If they had left it as 'we don't know' that would be a different story.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-02 10:58am

Axis Kast wrote:So it's "shit" when the Coalition holds off acknowledging responsibility in an attack it can't yet confirm was actually its own fault?

This isn't really a huge issue. So you were told that we didn't hit the market and you believe otherwise? I don't see why this tarnishes the US/UK reputation considering that most of our munitions have fallen on target and that no nation is going to admit it made a mistake until absolutely certain.

You know, I keep hearing this claim that most of the bombs hit their targets, but the only attacks I hear about are the ones that kill civilians, most of the time by errant missiles. Either someone needs to have a talk with Raytheon about faulty "smart" bombs, or else our pilots need to learn how to aim better. Or our media is only focussing on the negative aspects of war rather than hilighting the positive. Why they would do that, though, is beyond me. After all, the media was the very institution that hyped this war to begin with. It just seems to me as though someone should post some more articles on US/UK missiles actually hitting their targets as opposed to civilian marketplaces, hospitals, and British tanks.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-02 11:06am

You know, I keep hearing this claim that most of the bombs hit their targets, but the only attacks I hear about are the ones that kill civilians, most of the time by errant missiles.

That's because there are hundreds upon hundreds of sorties you hear nothing about. They're smart bombs not perfect bombs.

Either someone needs to have a talk with Raytheon about faulty "smart" bombs, or else our pilots need to learn how to aim better. Or our media is only focussing on the negative aspects of war rather than hilighting the positive. Why they would do that, though, is beyond me.

The media hypes it because it's more dramatic and heart grabbing than the endless footage of bombs smashing military buildings. They do it because it makes for better news than the successes. It's the same reason they spend so much time asking if the war effort is failing, it isn't but it's more dramatic than "The Iraqis are slowly and surely falling back but not as fast as we thought".

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-04-02 11:07am

Queeb Salaron wrote: You know, I keep hearing this claim that most of the bombs hit their targets, but the only attacks I hear about are the ones that kill civilians, most of the time by errant missiles.

Most of the info on Baghdad war damage is coming from Abu Dabi TV, its in the interest of their gov'ts propaganda to show only the civilian casualties. You are unlikely to see a successfull take-out of a significant military target on Iraqi TV.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-02 11:08am

Zoink wrote:Most of the info on Baghdad war damage is coming from Abu Dabi TV, its in the interest of their gov'ts propaganda to show only the civilian casualties. You are unlikely to see a successfull take-out of a significant military target on Iraqi TV.

But I'm sure people will get the message when we bomb the everloving shit out of their media headquarters.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 11:09am

Zoink wrote:
Most of the info on Baghdad war damage is coming from Abu Dabi TV, its in the interest of their gov'ts propaganda to show only the civilian casualties. You are unlikely to see a successfull take-out of a significant military target on Iraqi TV.

Well, for the most part, you couldn't see any significant military targets taken out anywhere for them to be reported. You've got US planes blowing up Presidential Palaces as if Saddam is sunbathing there as we speak

Any meaningful targets would be out of sight.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-02 11:12am

Vympel wrote:Well, for the most part, you couldn't see any significant military targets taken out anywhere for them to be reported. You've got US planes blowing up Presidential Palaces as if Saddam is sunbathing there as we speak

Any meaningful targets would be out of sight.

Yeah, that seems weird to me, too. Why are we bombing the palaces? We're not gonna find Sadaam there. He'd be off in what I'd liken to an Iraqi Camp David, wouldn't he? Or are we thinking that Sadaam has WMDs hidden in his palaces? That'd be something...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-02 11:17am

Queeb Salaron wrote:Yeah, that seems weird to me, too. Why are we bombing the palaces? We're not gonna find Sadaam there. He'd be off in what I'd liken to an Iraqi Camp David, wouldn't he? Or are we thinking that Sadaam has WMDs hidden in his palaces? That'd be something...

Because like the White House there are administrative functions and possibly C&C facilities in there. Plus there has been questions about WMDs in some of the palaces.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-02 11:48am

Stormbringer wrote:
You know, I keep hearing this claim that most of the bombs hit their targets, but the only attacks I hear about are the ones that kill civilians, most of the time by errant missiles.
That's because there are hundreds upon hundreds of sorties you hear nothing about. They're smart bombs not perfect bombs.

Precisely. So why the stonewalling and bullshitting from the American media about this incident, when they could have simply said it was a tragic error from day one?

It's becoming increasingly clear that the American media has sacrificed journalistic integrity upon the altar of patriotism. Most Americans recognize this; even a CNN poll on their website found that two thirds of visitors feel that the western media is not being honest, and I can't imagine that a lot of Arabs visit CNN's website or vote in its polls.

The really sad thing is that a lot of people who defend the American media point to the fact that Al-Jazeera has a similar slant to its reporting, in essence admitting that the western media makes no more effort at impartiality than Al-Jazeera (and perhaps it's even worse since there have been some notable falsehoods widely disseminated, such as the nearly two-week old claim that the British control Basra).

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-02 11:49am

Guess you thought he was some 20 year old marxist punk or something ....

No, I knew exactly who Fisk was, and my comment about his views stand.

Do you have anything else to bring to the table other than fallacious reasoning, and calling the Independent and Robert Fisk, one of the most well-known Middle East journalits, 'indie media'

Read it a little closer. I didn't state that he or the Independent were 'indie media'. I did state that I want confirmation from someone other than the so-called 'indie media'.

'Well-known' doesn't equate to 'credible'. Peter Arnett was an award winning reporter who got caught pushing a falsified story on CNN and subsequently resigned.

Given Mr. Fisk's incorrect predictions about Afghanistan, he's not so credible in my eyes.

Even if the Americans penetrated Afghanistan, their shells would only plough over the ruins. The Russians tried to destroy the Taliban's predecessors with 10 years of bombing, destroying whole villages, with their people, farm animals, fields, trees and mud huts. And still they could not get rid of the mujahedin, still they could not to use Mr Bush's inappropriately folksy phrase "smoke them out of their holes''.

With Pakistan as its only, broken ally among Afghan-istan's neighbours, with no friends inside the country and 10 million hidden land mines lying across its mountains and fields and cities, Mr Bush's "crusade'' looks more than dangerous. We are now being told that the United States is no longer afraid to take casualties. America, the President says, will have to accept losses. He'd better be right

Him and all of the other pundits who predicted 'another Vietnam' were wrong.

Something else is that Fisk is well known for his editorializing.
Why should I take anything he reports at face value when he calls the UK PM and the US President 'pygmies'?

The story could very well be true, but excuse me if I want independent confirmation and that I don't automatically take this man at his word.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-02 11:56am

Edit:

Something else is that Fisk is well known for his editorializing.

This should read:

Something else is that Fisk is well known for his editorializing within his reportage. Pontificating on the issues is one thing, but a reporter shouldn't do that within his news stories.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 11:56am

Glocksman wrote:
'Well-known' doesn't equate to 'credible'. Peter Arnett was an award winning reporter who got caught pushing a falsified story on CNN and subsequently resigned./quote]

Irrelevant, since we're not talking about Arnett.

Given Mr. Fisk's incorrect predictions about Afghanistan, he's not so credible in my eyes.
Utterly irrelevant. It's a prediction that's dated 18 September 2001- it does not lend itself well to 'indepenent confirmation', since nothing had happened yet. And frankly, it's HIGHLY debatable whether he was wrong, considering that Kabul is the only place that is even remotely civilized in Afghanistan, and war continues throughout the rest of the country as we speak, and US forces continue to come under attack.

Him and all of the other pundits who predicted 'another Vietnam' were wrong
Again, Not only has that yet to be seen, but it's also got utterly NOTHING to do with his reporting of an incident that has already happened.

Something else is that Fisk is well known for his editorializing.
Why should I take anything he reports at face value when he calls the UK PM and the US President 'pygmies'?
More fallacious reasoning. Explain why his opinion of the US/UK leaders has any bearing on the accuracy of his reporting (NOT his editorializing).

The story could very well be true, but excuse me if I want independent confirmation and that I don't automatically take this man at his word.

Considering your entire focus on his 'unreliability' is made on his warnings before anything ever happened two years ago, that's pretty damn lame.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-02 11:57am

Precisely. So why the stonewalling and bullshitting from the American media about this incident, when they could have simply said it was a tragic error from day one?

Because orginally the military said we don't know who's it is. From there the media just went wild.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the American media has sacrificed journalistic integrity upon the altar of patriotism. Most Americans recognize this; even a CNN poll on their website found that two thirds of visitors feel that the western media is not being honest, and I can't imagine that a lot of Arabs visit CNN's website or vote in its polls.

The 24 hour news networks have. They simply have to sensationalize and bullshit to draw in ratings so it's inevitable. Some of the nightly news programs and certainly the print news have tried to be as objective as possible.

The really sad thing is that a lot of people who defend the American media point to the fact that Al-Jazeera has a similar slant to its reporting, in essence admitting that the western media makes no more effort at impartiality than Al-Jazeera (and perhaps it's even worse since there have been some notable falsehoods widely disseminated, such as the nearly two-week old claim that the British control Basra).

Both sides have used the TV news as a propoganda mouthpeices. Part of the problem is the information is strictly controlled on both sides and so it's harder to get actual objective sources.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-02 11:57am

Glocksman wrote:Given Mr. Fisk's incorrect predictions about Afghanistan, he's not so credible in my eyes.

Incorrect predictions and lying are two entirely different things. I'm seeing a lot of the triple-D technique in your posts: deny, deny, deny.

Something else is that Fisk is well known for his editorializing.
Why should I take anything he reports at face value when he calls the UK PM and the US President 'pygmies'?

Editorializing and lying are two entirely different things.

The story could very well be true, but excuse me if I want independent confirmation and that I don't automatically take this man at his word.

So you accuse him of lying and your evidence for this is ...?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-02 12:53pm

Irrelevant, since we're not talking about Arnett.

No it's not irrelevant. You brought up the point that Fisk is well-known. Arnett merely illustrates that 'award-winning' and 'well-known' don't automatically equal credible.

More fallacious reasoning. Explain why his opinion of the US/UK leaders has any bearing on the accuracy of his reporting (NOT his editorializing).

A journalist's biases affect their reporting no matter how much they try to screen for it. Fisk's biases against Israel and US mideast policy are well known.

I don't automatically believe everything I hear from William F. Buckley, the Jerusalem Post, or Fox News either.

The interesting thing is that this isn't the first time that Fisk has claimed to have identified US ordnance from the fragments. He's done it twice before.

America's name is literally stamped on to the missiles fired by Israel into Palestinian buildings in Gaza and the West Bank. Only four weeks ago, I identified one of them as an AGM 114-D air-to-ground rocket made by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin at their factory in – of all places – Florida, the state where some of the suiciders trained to fly.

It was fired from an Apache helicopter (made in America, of course) during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when hundreds of cluster bombs were dropped in civilian areas of Beirut by the Israelis in contravention of undertakings given to the United States. Most of the bombs had US Naval markings and America then suspended a shipment of fighter bombers to Israel – for less than two months.

The same type of missile – this time an AGM 114-C made in Georgia– was fired by the Israelis into the back of an ambulance near the Lebanese village of Mansori, killing two women and four children. I collected the pieces of the missile, including its computer coding plate, flew to Georgia and presented them to the manufacturers at the Boeing factory. And what did the developer of the missile say to me when I showed him photographs of the children his missile had killed? "Whatever you do," he told me, "don't quote me as saying anything critical of the policies of Israel."

So we have a controversial journalist who reports something controversial that dovetails in nicely with his worldview without corroborating evidence, and I'm supposed to accept it without either independent confirmation or visual proof such as a picture of the fragment?

Digital cameras are both very small these days and very cheap. A picture would give this story much more credibilty.

Tell you what, If it's independently confirmed I'll gladly admit I am wrong.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-04-02 01:05pm

American media honesty would serve us better than trying to hand out fig leaves when problems occur. We, the people watching back home, are left with a feel of curious incompleteness, I think.

But then media honesty would also remind us that, tragic as this errant bomb was in the market, that for every bomb that is mis-targeted or goes off course there are thousands of othesr who hit their targets correctly. All the media outlets pounce on the exception because it is interesting, and people on each side of the political spectrum get a false sesne of what represents the norm over there.

The US news should have said from the start, and the DoD backing them on this, that it was a tragic mistake and that civilians were not the intended target. That would make things a lot easier for us-- being seen as honest all along.