The Dogs of War

[theavonlady 2]

Smoking Gun!

Proof of French complicity in violating the embargo on Iraq:

Under a sky clouded by the smoke of battle, U.S. Army Cpt.

Chris Carter, commander of A Company 3rd Battalion 7th

Infantry Regiment calls in an airstrike on Iraqi forces firing on

them from across the Tigris River in Baghdad Monday, April 7,

2003. The unopened bottle of French wine, vintage 1983,

was found by Carter's men in a bombed house adjacent to

the a presidential palace which American troops took over

earlier Monday.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 08 2003,10:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The unopened bottle of French wine, vintage 1983<span id='postcolor'>

Not bad!

[Balschoiw 0]

Avon I am kind of pissed about your funny comments on people getting killed. This is the wrong place to make jokes about peoples deaths. You´d find it funny if your kids got killed and somebody made a joke about the origin of their trousers ?

Just some note. Civillians die in Bagdad and Iraq in general in large numbers. And as I already said 48 percent of the Iraqi population are kids up to the age of 14. It´s simply disgusting to see your cheers all the way.

Maybe we should make fun of the deaths of coaltion forces also ?

[theavonlady 2]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 08 2003,145)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Avon I am kind of pissed about your funny comments on people getting killed.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, it wasn't meant that way but, you're right. My post about Al Jazeera was inappropriate and so I have edited it and noted so.

But I'm not touching the French vino post above.

edit: Any other posts of mine you're referring to?

[theavonlady 2]

Before.

After.

[Guest]

BBC:

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

1145: Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, dies of wounds received when a US tank shelled Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, a base for foreign media in the city. Three other Reuters staff and a Spanish cameraman were also wounded.

1132: US marines capture the Rashid military airfield on the eastern outskirts of Baghdad, meeting no resistance, an officer tells Reuters at the airfield. The airfield is five kilometres (three miles) from the city centre.

1053: The US A-10 ground attack plane lost over Baghdad was shot down, General Blount confirms.

<span id='postcolor'>

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1053: The US A-10 ground attack plane lost over Baghdad was shot down, General Blount confirms.<span id='postcolor'>

Woohoo! That's one wealthy Iraqi gunner! I bet his check's in the mail already.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1145: Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, dies of wounds received when a US tank shelled Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, a base for foreign media in the city. Three other Reuters staff and a Spanish cameraman were also wounded.<span id='postcolor'>

You can see a very emotional eye witness account, from Sky correspondent David Chater, by clicking on the video link in this Sky article.

There's a raw video on Reuters on the attack. Very gory. I think the dead cameraman is shown being hawled into a vehicle, just as they're taking home out of the hotel.

[theavonlady 2]

Reuters wire reporting coalition forces approaching central Baghdad from the north.

[Guest]

Latest Robert Fisk report. About the US push into Baghdad and the Iraqi resistance.

[Peanut 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 07 2003,14:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides soldiers, 2 more journalists killed today in southern Baghdad.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....2520214

Names not mentioned yet.<span id='postcolor'>

Christian Liebig, German "embedded" reporter for German weekly magazine Focus

Julio Anguita Parrado, journalist for the Spanish newspaper "El Mundo"

[Guest]

U.S. tests say chemicals not weapons

And we're waiting for the next false alarm... To tell you the truth, I'd be much happier if an independent organization checked those claims. Today it is too much like letting the fox guard the chickens.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Peanut @ April 08 2003,15:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 07 2003,14:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides soldiers, 2 more journalists killed today in southern Baghdad.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....2520214

Names not mentioned yet.<span id='postcolor'>

Christian Liebig, German "embedded" reporter for German  weekly magazine Focus

Julio Anguita Parrado, journalist for the Spanish newspaper "El Mundo"<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. Since I posted that yesterday, the names have been publicized.

Back to this morning's attack on the Palestine Hotel. Have a look at this AP news article and note the mention of Iraqi snipers injuring two US soldiers. Is this essentially the "missing link"?

I mean, it looks like the tank commander/gunner targeted the wrong building and/or mistook the reporters (viewing the tank movements from upper floors of the hotel with binocs, according to their own accounts) for snipers.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.S. tests say chemicals not weapons

And we're waiting for the next false alarm...   To tell you the truth, I'd be much happier if an independent organization checked those claims. Today it is too much like letting the fox guard the chickens.<span id='postcolor'>

And yet, the truth has come out every time. And all the talk of counting on the coalition to "plant" WMDs hasn't materialized.

Unless............................ they really are WMDs. They must be lying!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 08 2003,14:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.S. tests say chemicals not weapons

And we're waiting for the next false alarm...   To tell you the truth, I'd be much happier if an independent organization checked those claims. Today it is too much like letting the fox guard the chickens.<span id='postcolor'>

And yet, the truth has come out every time. And all the talk of counting on the coalition to "plant" WMDs hasn't materialized.

Unless............................ they really are WMDs. They must be lying! <span id='postcolor'>

How do you know that? Do you think that they would be stupid to fake the evidence directly? Of course not. First you build up a credibility by dismissing all sorts of WMD claims. Then when everybody knows that you are "telling the truth" you plant the evidence.

It's perhaps not a coincidence that the CentCom has really played up every claim so far and admitted equaly loud that it was wrong.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How do you know that? Do you think that they would be stupid to fake the evidence directly? Of course not. First you build up a credibility by dismissing all sorts of WMD claims. Then when everybody knows that you are "telling the truth" you plant the evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

Why Denoir! You've found the smoking gun!

edit: (Damned if you do. Damed if you don't)

I disagree with you you in general and especially with you last words:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's perhaps not a coincidence that the CentCom has really played up every claim so far and admitted equaly loud that it was wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Other than the first 2 cases, I have not seen them "play up" or "admit loudly" their reports on these cases any more than any of their other statements in the last 3 weeks.

I assume you've monitored CentCom spokesperson's voice decibal levels to establish using such words.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 08 2003,14:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How do you know that? Do you think that they would be stupid to fake the evidence directly? Of course not. First you build up a credibility by dismissing all sorts of WMD claims. Then when everybody knows that you are "telling the truth" you plant the evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

Why Denoir! You've found the smoking gun!

edit: (Damned if you do. Damed if you don't)<span id='postcolor'>

In the intelligence business the most important thing is that you are never found to be wrong. It's much more important then producing a valuable analysis

The opinions that I have expressed.

1) It's possible that Iraq has WMDs since the UN inspectors never got to finish their work.

2) It's possible that Iraq does not have WMDs since no evidence whatsoever has been found.

3) It's possible that elements of government organizations in US and UK will plant evidence if its not found.

As you can see, I've covered my six 'o clock completely And you might also notice that I've not made any absolute predictions so I have not been wrong on any developments so far.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,16:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you might also notice that I've not made any absolute predictions so I have not been wrong on any developments so far. <span id='postcolor'>

Your sources said that in the first 3-4 days of the war, there were several hundred coalition KIAs.

I take it there must be some 5000+ by now, right?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 08 2003,15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,16:0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you might also notice that I've not made any absolute predictions so I have not been wrong on any developments so far. <!--emo&:)<span id='postcolor'>

Your sources said that in the first 3-4 days of the war, there were several hundred coalition KIAs.

I take it there must be some 5000+ by now, right?<span id='postcolor'>

I quoted sources, I never claimed them to be my own estimations. I'll make an exception though and say that I do indeed believe that there have been coalition casualties at least one order of magnitude larger then the ones mentioned by centcom so far.

[PFC_Mike 2]

Avon's right, you know. The first three or four days of war, you assured the forum that the US had taken hundreds of casuaties and several hundred US/UK troops were dead. I'm willing to believe the Pentagon has been slow in moving people from MIA to KIA, but it seems unlikely that more than 200 US/UK troops have been killed.

As for the Iraqis, pick a number 10 through 100 and multiply it by 1,000. You'll get a plausible Iraqi KIA figure.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ April 08 2003,15:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Avon's right, you know. The first three or four days of war, you assured the forum that the US had taken hundreds of casuaties and several hundred US/UK troops were dead. I'm willing to believe the Pentagon has been slow in moving people from MIA to KIA, but it seems unlikely that more than 200 US/UK troops have been killed.

As for the Iraqis, pick a number 10 through 100 and multiply it by 1,000. You'll get a plausible Iraqi KIA figure.<span id='postcolor'>

About day seven I made an estimation of about 300 anglo-american casualties. I stick by that number. Currently I'd say about 500-1000 anglo-american casualties judging from the scale and type of battles that have been taking place.

Iraqi KIAs? Difficult to tell. We only have the Anglo-American estimates which I find about as credible as the claims of the Iraqi state TV.

[theavonlady 2]

On their tippy toes.

edit: Note the report about the T52 that went to the airport. What were they thinking?!

[bn880 5]

Reading that Robert Fisk report and seeing that journalists testimony on the shelling of the Palestine hotel really makes it clear that there is a 100% attitude of shoot first examine threats later attitude among the u.s. forces. Disgusting. If someone thinks this is really acceptable, nuts.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 08 2003,17:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reading that Robert Fisk report and seeing that journalists testimony on the shelling of the Palestine hotel really makes it clear that there is a 100% attitude of shoot first examine threats later attitude among the u.s. forces.  Disgusting.  If someone thinks this is really acceptable, nuts.<span id='postcolor'>

In war, it would seem quite acceptable.

And nuts to you!

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 08 2003,10:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 08 2003,175)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reading that Robert Fisk report and seeing that journalists testimony on the shelling of the Palestine hotel really makes it clear that there is a 100% attitude of shoot first examine threats later attitude among the u.s. forces. Disgusting. If someone thinks this is really acceptable, nuts.<span id='postcolor'>

In war, it would seem quite acceptable.

And nuts to you! <span id='postcolor'>

It seems you don't understand the value of human life. You understand only borders and material things. Avon. Correct?