The Dogs of War

[Samelborp 0]

Thanks Balschoiw for the clarification. I'm sorry my request caused such a stir.

Avon Lady, now I understand why you are playing less OPF these days!  

I would like to say that posting so many times a day it's very easy to get caught in the disinformation storm that is embracing old and new media, east and west, north and south. I know it's difficult to avoid it, as those events are of outmost importance for all of us (and for some more than others, Lady, I know).

I just want to warn you against the effect of the so called facts that maybe in the future we'll learn they weren't so. Maybe we'll have to be more careful in our discussion.

For instance, the uprisings in Basra doesn't seem to be 100% accurate. Spanish journalist in Kuwait can't confirm that indeed there is any uprising. But, hey, those are just another source, so maybe we'll have to take into account how Bush Sr abandoned them in the last Gulf War. Arabs have a say: if you deceive me once, shame on you, if you deceive me twice, shame on me (more or less)

Anyway, let's keep the discussion civilized!

[Othin 0]

Well, this thread has outlived its utility.

The point of this was to post factual all source news updates on the progress of the war. The intent was to try to provide each other with an unbiased full picture of what is going on.

When people start coming into the thread and making claims that cannot be proven by sources available to everyone it turns nasty. But I guess it's not about presenting the news as it is, it's trying to make the other "side" eat crow. This thread would have been much more useful if everyone left their opinions and personal bias' out of it, but obviously this is impossible on this forum.

Expected, but still unfortunate. At least we have the topic with all the varied news sources in it (thanks to those who posted them).

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 26 2003,17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes but who's disagreeing with that? What you're describing is the picture I have of the situation, too.<span id='postcolor'>

We can only sit, drink green tea and wait who of us was right.<span id='postcolor'>

/still searching for the hidden camera

Well you have me totally confused. Just what do you and I disagree on, if the overall picture presented in total by the major press agencies gives a relatively realistic view of what actually happening?

Is the disagreement on how this will end? I, personally, am not blindly optimistic.

Is the disagreement about whether this war was justified? I have my doubts.

Is the diagreement over when someone like Balshoiw says that he knows better because he's from the UN? Could be. Or when he says the the bombing of the market today was intentional? Could be.

Just summing up while I sip my tea (but you knew that already).

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 26 2003,17:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point of this was to post factual all source news updates on the progress of the war.  The intent was to try to  provide each other with an unbiased full picture of what is going on.<span id='postcolor'>

There are no unbiased sources and nobody has the full picture. We just have to accept this and move on. Still, if somebody posted "The Republican Guard today killed 200,000 US troops" - you'd question that, right?

Otherwise, it's been a slow day. I guess the sand storm has been preventing any real progress.

[Balschoiw 0]

In central Iraq, a U.S. F-16 mistakenly bombed an American Patriot missile battery radar, thinking it was an Iraqi radar.

Another source claims that a british tank has been shot by a british tank. 2 killed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This thread would have been much more useful if everyone left their opinions and personal bias' out of it, but obviously this is impossible on this forum.

<span id='postcolor'>

Hm. I agree with you. Fortunally all my news turned out to be true or let´s better say unfortunally...

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are no unbiased sources and nobody has the full picture. We just have to accept this and move on. Still, if somebody posted "The Republican Guard today killed 200,000 US troops" - you'd question that, right?

Otherwise, it's been a slow day. I guess the sand storm has been preventing any real progress.<span id='postcolor'>

LIES  A storm of sand?  Preposterous.  Next thing you'll tell me is that frozen water can fall from the sky.  

I agree though, we won't be able to find an unbiased news source (Anyone see CNN this morning cut the Iraqi briefing off because "the government will disagree with most of what he's saying").  My point was that we can all combine this all source info gathering (weeee we're a JIC) into an overall unbiased picture (in a perfect world).

In manning news, the 4th Infantry finally got their orders to deploy to the Gulf.

[Guest]

A moderating announcement:

Since you have all been posting links to sites (like BBC,CNN,Reuters) that contain explicit pictures of dead and injured people, you are all in violation of the board rules §2.4.

Since we are to lazy to ban you all, an alteration of that specific rule will be in practice in this thread and this thread only.

You may post links to sites that contain explicit pictures of dead and injured people, as long as you post a clear warning with the link.

Hotlinking explicit pictures is still very much against the rules as well as linking directly to explicit pictures.

I repeat: You may put links to web pages containing explicit pictures as long as you give an adequate warning. You may not post or link explicit pictures directly in your posts.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "Jerusalem Post" is not a very good source for accurate information. Maybe you remember the factory discovered labelled as factory for chemical WMD´s ? It was the Jerusalem post that brought it into public along with some other networks. Credibillity ? None in my eyes.

If you want to see the ROE´s of coaltion forces in action you should have a fixed eye on Basra. This will show you the ROE´s in action.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! JP's Caroline Glick was the first reporter to arrive there. She reported what she was told and jumped at the opportunity - hastily indeed.

When I mentioned it here, I even said let's see whether this turns out to be a dud or not.

Many of the JP links I posted here are verbatim AP wires - not from the JP itself. Nothing more. Nothing Less.

JP Credibility? No more or less than any of the others.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,18:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In central Iraq, a U.S. F-16 mistakenly bombed an American Patriot missile battery radar, thinking it was an Iraqi radar.<span id='postcolor'>

I heard this, too, yet can't find one convincing source.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another source claims that a british tank has been shot by a british tank. 2 killed.<span id='postcolor'>

I saw a video at Reuters where a British officer at a press conference confirmed this "blue on blue" incident.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,17:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

/still searching for the hidden camera<span id='postcolor'>

You won`t find it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just summing up while I sip my tea (but you knew that already).<span id='postcolor'>

You`re right.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,17:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,18:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In central Iraq, a U.S. F-16 mistakenly bombed an American Patriot missile battery radar, thinking it was an Iraqi radar.<span id='postcolor'>

I heard this, too, yet can't find one convincing source.<span id='postcolor'>

You liked Sky News, right?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since you have all been posting links to sites (like BBC,CNN,Reuters) that contain explicit pictures of dead and injured people, you are all in violation of the board rules §2.4.<span id='postcolor'>

That would be the "Royal You", since you yourself did so, regarding the market bombing earlier today.

[Tydium 0]

Al-Jazeera have broadcasted a video of two dead soldiers and two POW said to be British.

Reuters report

[Balschoiw 0]

Avon can´t you just accept that military personel has different sources than news networks ?

I mean why do you argue things that are fresh and certainly not in the mainstream media. If you check this thread back you will find out that most of the info given by denoir or me, both active in military forces, has turned out to be true. Media has a delay on info. An intentional delay. I just wanted to explain that to you.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since you have all been posting links to sites (like BBC,CNN,Reuters) that contain explicit pictures of dead and injured people, you are all in violation of the board rules §2.4.<span id='postcolor'>

That would be the "Royal You", since you yourself did so, regarding the market bombing earlier today. <span id='postcolor'>

I never put up a link. I just said "Reuters".

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,18:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,17:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,18:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In central Iraq, a U.S. F-16 mistakenly bombed an American Patriot missile battery radar, thinking it was an Iraqi radar.<span id='postcolor'>

I heard this, too, yet can't find one convincing source.<span id='postcolor'>

You liked Sky News, right?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I like Sky. That Sky report is an hour plus old. I heard about this earlier this morning on the OFP NG.

Since I could coroborate it at the time, I did not bother mentioning it here.

[Guest]

Actually it's one day + old:

Last Updated: 17:15 UK, Tuesday March 25, 2003

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"There are two major sources of propaganda: one is Baghdad and the other is Washington/London"

The idea that propaganda can only (or mostly)come from the belligerents is plainly ludicrous .That is not what you said but it seems to be an implication that those not directly involved in the fighting will somehow be much more free from bias and 'factual economics' than those countries involved.

Given the massive trans-atlantic or even global clash in the run up to this war i think it bizzare to think that most national presses will not have their own biases and preferences for the type of information reported to the public.

I take US/UK government press briefings with a tablespoon full of salt. All of the major newspapers and news-organisations have their agendas ot at least a 'slant' and columnists have their opinions. That said it is perfectly possible to take account of this and make reasonable deductions using multiple sources and just such forums of comparison as this.

+many newspapers in this country have extremely detailed information about the movements and activities of British units (with a delay of a day or two)

and only fairly detailed info on US activities, i imagine in the US its reversed. Some or most of this may prove to be pretty much untrue, but there is such a volume of information in the national press that SOME of it must be quite accurate.

I imagine if Sweden went to a war like this then the papers might have quite a lot more information than the foreign reports (thats not to say im believing eveything i read! ) .

Balschoiw-i respect that you might want to inform us with your unique sources- but you must admit reading your last few posts you have not come across as being particularly impartial.

And i will indeed believe British soldiers are deliberatly mowing down civilians when i see it.(i will then go straight to London to protest).

"The "Jerusalem Post" is not a very good source for accurate information"

I have never quoted or referred to it(or even subscribed-sorry avon   )

anyway lets get back to discussing the facts(that arent).

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Avon can´t you just accept that military personel has different sources than news networks ?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I accept that. Can't you accept that those sources may be unreliable and have agendas attached to them?

I do because I live in a country where political agendas crept into the military in the last 20 years and have caused havoc with our security.

I have no problem assuming that those who despise the US's decision to enter into this war against the UN's and most of Europe's opinions, have their own axes to grind.

And it shows in many posts here.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I mean why do you argue things that are fresh and certainly not in the mainstream media. If you check this thread back you will find out that most of the info given by denoir or me, both active in military forces, has turned out to be true. Media has a delay on info. An intentional delay. I just wanted to explain that to you.<span id='postcolor'>

The delay in accuracy by the media has mostly taken less than a day to rectify.

Let's take today's report about yesterday's big battle in Najaf. First headlines said 750 Iraqi's dead with no coalition casualties. At the same time, US government sources said that don't have a nunber on this. Latest reports say 1000.

Denoir laughed the whole report off. So, what do your sources say?

It's not the facts I'm arguing against. It's your slant and agenda. You state that you KNOW that today's market attack was intentional. No one argues about the attack. It's the intent that's in question.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually it's one day + old:

Last Updated: 17:15 UK, Tuesday March 25, 2003<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Then I missed it overnight.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I accept that. Can't you accept that those sources may be unreliable and have agendas attached to them?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes but we have a huge variety of military networks to chose from. Iran for example knows a lot about the current Umm Kasr situation and they track movements on their border very accurate. They report that to the UN as they fear to get involved. As I already said, it´s obviouse that media is quite contrary on news on the IF operations. So are the military sources, but we have one big advantage. You collect security reports all over the time and fusion them or exclude some of the things if only unilateral reported. After filtering all this info you come to a level of "near reality". We all know that info is a dangerouse thing during wars explicitly from the parties engaged in the wars. By comparing all this reports and excluding the obviouse nonsense you get a picture that is as near to reality as possible.

And only to make sure. I don´t get paid by the germans. My money comes from the UN.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's take today's report about yesterday's big battle in Najaf. First headlines said 750 Iraqi's dead with no coalition casualties. At the same time, US government sources said that don't have a nunber on this. Latest reports say 1000.

Denoir laughed the whole report off. So, what do your sources say?<span id='postcolor'>

I don´t have anything on that location. This is a so called uncovered set. We will have to wait untill neutral organs hit the scene there. Neither the coal reports nor the Iraqi ones seem to be accurate on this one.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don´t have anything on that location. This is a so called uncovered set. We will have to wait untill neutral organs hit the scene there. Neither the coal reports nor the Iraqi ones seem to be accurate on this one.<span id='postcolor'>

As I said before, I don't have any info on it either. But use your common sense. You have experience from desert warfare.

Is it reasonable that without air support and in a sand storm with extremely low visibility that the coalition forces killed 1000 Iraqi soldiers while not taking one singe casualty?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,18:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don´t get paid by the germans. My money comes from the UN.<span id='postcolor'>

Worse, in my eyes. I'm sure you knew I would say that.

First you say:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don´t have anything on that location. This is a so called uncovered set. We will have to wait untill neutral organs hit the scene there.<span id='postcolor'>

Then you say:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neither the coal reports nor the Iraqi ones seem to be accurate on this one.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, we don't know yet, do we? You're assuming again.

I think there may be some confusion here on this thread. When anyone posts a news link on this thread, it does not attest to the poster's belief that everything or anything in the linked article is true.

The example of my post about the chemical factory is an explicit example. I posted the link, made it sound like headline news (which, it was,, in press terms) and ended off myself with a potential of doubt.

[Guest]

Iraq rejects Saudi proposal to stop war

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Baghdad rejected what it called a Saudi "plot" to stop the onslaught on Iraq (news - web sites), vowing to "slaughter" US-led troops if they do not pull out immediately.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Worse, in my eyes. I'm sure you knew I would say that.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well I didn´t know, but now I understand your motivations.

I will from now on not react to discussions on credibility or not.

I will just post post what I think is worth posting.

Full stop.