Who do you believe? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-18-2003, 03:50 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
But nevermind. You keep telling yourself whatever it is you want to believe.
Sula, that was pretty condescending.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 07:06 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Well, I don't particularly like the deficits and what I see as bad diplomacy either. Some people might say I'm looking at the hole of a doughnut, but.........c'est la vie.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 07:36 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:36 PM
PART II



Quote:
AFTER THE WAR





There Was No Hussein Bunker, CBS Reports
From Reuters

May 29, 2003

WASHINGTON The Baghdad bunker that the United States said it bombed on the opening day of the Iraq war in a bid to kill Saddam Hussein never existed, a broadcast report said Wednesday.

"CBS Evening News" quoted a U.S. Army colonel in charge of inspecting key sites in Baghdad as saying no trace of a bunker or bodies was found at the site on the southern outskirts of the Iraqi capital.

"When we came out here, the primary thing they were looking for was an underground facility, or bodies, forensics, and basically what they saw was giant holes created. No underground facilities, no bodies," Col. Tim Madere said.

The network reported that the CIA searched the site once and that Madere searched it twice as part of efforts to find traces of DNA that could indicate if Hussein or his sons had been killed or wounded.

CBS said a palace of Hussein's remained standing amid the surrounding destruction. It quoted Madere as saying that anyone who had been in the building could have survived the raid.

Shortly after the attack, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters: "There's no question but that the strike on that leadership headquarters was successful. We have photographs of what took place. The question is, what was in there?"

The U.S. in effect acknowledged the March 20 raid failed to kill Hussein when it launched a second attack aimed at the Iraqi president April 7. His fate and those of sons Uday and Qusai remain unclear.
Rumsfeld is advocating for a Nuke bomb called a bunker buster.

Supposedly it goes 5 stories underground. They say it is low risk?

This talk of Saddam being 5 stories underground is not plausible.

Baghdad is an alluvial plain. They would have to have large pumping stations going 24 hours a day, that would easily be detectable.


Well, It sounds the Iraq war may have begun with an ersatz attack. Faulty intelligence or deception?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 08:01 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Well I know I was sceptical about WMD's. I'm not surprised that "Saddam's bunker" never existed.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 08:07 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 03:36 AM
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 09:29 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:36 PM
The article only says that one suspected bunker did not exist at the targeted location. Intelligence is not a perfect science - this hardly qualifies as "deception".
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 10:14 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

Well, It sounds (like) the Iraq war may have begun with an ersatz attack. Faulty intelligence or deception?
I agree it is too early to conclude this for sure.

That is why I wrote may have begun

I still don't think Rumsfeld (Dr. Strangelove) should be given small nukes.

His track record is proving troublesome.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-30-2003, 03:55 PM   #23
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Here's a newer article on the Pvt. Lynch fiasco

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16033

Pentagon Aims Guns at Lynch Reports

By Robert Scheer, AlterNet
May 29, 2003

It is one thing when the talk-show bullies, who shamelessly smeared the last president even as he attacked the training camps of Al Qaeda, now term it anti-American or even treasonous to dare criticize the Bush administration. It's another when our Pentagon a $400-billion-a-year juggernaut savages individual journalists for questioning its version of events.


Especially if you're that journalist.


Last week, this column reported the findings of a British Broadcasting Corp. special report that accused the U.S. military and media of inaccurately and manipulatively hyping the story of U.S. Pvt. Jessica Lynch and her rescue from an Iraq hospital. The column was also informed by similar and independently reported articles and statements in the Toronto Star, the Washington Post and other reputable publications.


Expected and received was a hysterical belch of outrage from the right-wing media, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox empire, which has already committed a huge book advance to the telling of this mythic tale. A fiery and disingenuous response from the Pentagon, however, was quite a bit more sobering.


Calling the column a "tirade," Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke wrote in a letter to The Times that "Scheer's claims are outrageous, patently false and unsupported by the facts."


"Official spokespeople in Qatar and in Washington, as well as the footage released, reflected the events accurately," the Pentagon letter continued. "To suggest otherwise is an insult and does a grave disservice to the brave men and women involved."


Actually, what is a grave disservice is manipulating a gullible media with leaked distortions from unnamed official sources about Lynch's heroics in battle. That aside, it would have been easier to rebut the Pentagon if its spokeswoman had actually questioned any of the facts the BBC or this column reported. In particular, the Pentagon turned down the request by the BBC and other media to view the full, unedited footage of the rescue.


Perhaps Clarke is frustrated that in the days since the BBC report, several major publications such as the Chicago Tribune and the London Daily Mail have independently verified much of the BBC's disturbing account of what the broadcasting corporation called "one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived."


The distortions concerning Lynch began two days after the rescue with a front-page Washington Post story by veteran reporters Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb. They cited U.S. officials as the source of their information that Lynch "fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition" and that she "continued firing after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds." The Post quoted one of the unnamed U.S. officials as saying "she was fighting to the death. She did not want to be taken alive."


Despite their current defensiveness, Clarke and other Pentagon honchos had to know that the story attributed to U.S. officials was false, because Lynch had at that point already been rescued and examined by U.S. military doctors, who found no evidence of a single gunshot wound, let alone multiple gunshot wounds. Yet they did nothing to challenge the Post story, which was carried worldwide and quickly became the main heroic propaganda myth of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


It was only last week, after the BBC-initiated brouhaha, that the Pentagon finally launched its own investigation of what actually occurred when Lynch was taken prisoner. According to the Washington Times, the investigation came about after top Pentagon officials cast doubt on the Lynch battle-scene account, of which she has no memory.


However, the Pentagon investigators were not asked to look into the circumstances surrounding Lynch's subsequent rescue. Much of the BBC's account has now been supported by other media investigations, which confirm that a U.S. attack on an unguarded hospital was spun into the stuff of Hollywood heroics.


The Tribune's Monday story, for example, provided new details of how slickly a tale of derring-do was created, enhanced for television by that five-minute Pentagon-supplied night-vision video. The Tribune also added details supporting the BBC account that hospital staff members had placed Lynch in an ambulance and tried to deliver her to a U.S. checkpoint before being turned back by random American fire.


What is particularly sad in all of this is that a wonderfully hopeful story was available to the Pentagon to sell to the eager media: one in which besieged Iraqi doctors and nurses bravely cared for and supplied their own blood to a similarly brave young American woman in a time of madness and violence. Instead, eager to turn the war into a morality play between good and evil, the military used if not abused Lynch to put a heroic spin on an otherwise sorry tale of unjustified invasion.


The truth hurts, but that's no excuse for trying to shoot the messenger.


Robert Scheer writes a weekly column for The Times.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-30-2003, 04:57 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:36 AM
"The truth hurts, but that's no excuse for trying to shoot the messenger."


"Robert Scheer writes a weekly column for The Times"

Yep, the truth hurts. The fact that the USA, UK and Australia were so incredibly successful in bringing down one of the worst dictators in history must hurt. No mass loss of life predicted by Robert and his friends ever happened. They were wrong and I guess that must hurt which explains why we have articles like this one written by Robert. Does this article really have anything relevant to do with the situation in Iraq? This article is simply an unsuccessful attempt to dig up dirt on an organization that is not one of his favorites. If Robert wants to know what really happen, go talk to the soldiers that were involved in the operation. The BBC was not there, the US military was there.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-14-2003, 04:58 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Who do you believe?



This man was a "Fighter Pilot"?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-14-2003, 07:17 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Who knows. Just realize that when the government reports that everything is going perfectly in a war, it is pretty unlikely.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-15-2003, 06:27 AM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Who knows. Just realize that when the government reports that everything is going perfectly in a war, it is pretty unlikely.

Melon
But surely only the government know what's really going on in a war. I mean the military work for the government and we all know that only the military know the truth about what happens in war. And there's clearly no reason for the military to lie: if the military just happened to accidently bomb a school and kill every inhabitant, there would be no reason for them to lie about it! They're the only ones who know what happened and they will tell the truth, the whole truth and only the truth!

Those pesky reporters don't know anything about what happened. They weren't there. No, not even those reporters who were in the Palestine hotel when it was attacked. They weren't really there, they don't really know what happened. And besides, the media lie! They're all liberals and not to be trusted. No, we mustn't trust the media - when we want to know what happened in the war we must be sure to ask those impartial military people, only they can tell us the truth.

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 06-21-2003, 10:06 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The article only says that one suspected bunker did not exist at the targeted location. Intelligence is not a perfect science - this hardly qualifies as "deception".
But just think about it, what if they used a "little" nucliar bomb there.
__________________

__________________
Rono is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com