Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
U.S. raid targets foreign fighters
E.J.Armstrong
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Messages
- 3,806
If the USA military machine said it, it must be correct. Right?
Glad we sorted that one out.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
No, they use body counts to answer reporter's questions, not to measure success.joe1347 said:
BTW, when will demon chime in to claim that all those killed were actually innocent civilians delivering food and medicine to starving children, etc etc? He's long overdue...
Quick! Give us a good headline! OK - "U.S. kills 75 insurgents"
I note that the BBC are wrapping the words 'killed 75 Iraq insurgents' in quotes, since the report was entirely sourced from the U.S. military.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4528229.stm
The story obviously distracts from the losses suffered by American troops.
BTW, it does look like that spring offensive is underway in Afghanistan, where two U.S. soldiers were killed at the weekend. Things are so bad that the Karzai Puppet Company are now considering granting amnesty to the Taleban's Mullah Omar and his psychopathic ally Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/i...&en=915805b4f7a6046e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
I note that the BBC are wrapping the words 'killed 75 Iraq insurgents' in quotes, since the report was entirely sourced from the U.S. military.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4528229.stm
The story obviously distracts from the losses suffered by American troops.
BTW, it does look like that spring offensive is underway in Afghanistan, where two U.S. soldiers were killed at the weekend. Things are so bad that the Karzai Puppet Company are now considering granting amnesty to the Taleban's Mullah Omar and his psychopathic ally Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/i...&en=915805b4f7a6046e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
You do realize that reporters are still embedded w/ the Marines fighting in western Iraq, don't you? Are they all lieing too? Should only US losses be reported? Apparently, in demon world that is the case.demon said:
2 US soldiers killed in the Afghani spring offensive? My word, it's a disatrous blood bath! Who knew 2 soldiers could die in an offensive!? Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, and Okinawa would never have been taken in WWII if 2 Marines had been killed... luckily we were able to talk the Japanese into surrendering those islands. From a historical perspective, it's a horrible disaster.
You must admit, Karzai has accomplished an astounding feat: The first puppet leader to be elected in a fair, internationally monitored election! That must really piss you off, huh?
(Shrug)
Childish insults to the contrary notwithstanding, official US Army claims--like official claims in any western army--tend to be rather reliable. The point is that if the credibility of what those statements say is impeached, then the whole point of having an official statement is defeated.
What is true is that official statements of this sort are not subject to the "fairness doctrine" or "full disclosure" laws, of course, so it is quite common for the official US Army (or, again, any western armed forces) to say absolutely nothing about a battle that's going badly, for instance, or to give only part of the story.
But what they DO say better be accurate to the best of their knowledge. It is for this reason, for instance, that official statements are always very carefully phrased when they announce good news that they aren't 100% sure are true--such as, for instance, the recent capture of Al-Quaeda's #3 man. They only said that they BELIEVE (as oppose to being certain) that he was captured; similarly with statements of the "The US Army said it considers it probable that...", etc.
In this case--a straightforward factual statement about who they killed where in battle without any "we believe" or "possible" qualifiers--it is very likely that the information is accurate. It might not be the WHOLE story--it usually isn't--but it is almost certainly not made up.
In any case, with Iraq in particular, the "US Army is lying--let me tell you THE TRUTH!" camp had been so spectacularly and consistantly wrong in its claims throughout the entire Iraqi campaign, that by now I would probably believe a network calling itself "The Official US Army Propaganda Channel" over anything they say.
After all, if you actually are in the military and know something about Iraq, then even open propaganda occassionaly lets some true statements in, if only for versimilitude or to make the lies more effective; while the "evil US lying invaders" crowd is, for the most part, so utterly ignorant about Iraq and the middle east in general that just about nothing it claims as "the truth about Iraq" could even possibly be true.
Childish insults to the contrary notwithstanding, official US Army claims--like official claims in any western army--tend to be rather reliable. The point is that if the credibility of what those statements say is impeached, then the whole point of having an official statement is defeated.
What is true is that official statements of this sort are not subject to the "fairness doctrine" or "full disclosure" laws, of course, so it is quite common for the official US Army (or, again, any western armed forces) to say absolutely nothing about a battle that's going badly, for instance, or to give only part of the story.
But what they DO say better be accurate to the best of their knowledge. It is for this reason, for instance, that official statements are always very carefully phrased when they announce good news that they aren't 100% sure are true--such as, for instance, the recent capture of Al-Quaeda's #3 man. They only said that they BELIEVE (as oppose to being certain) that he was captured; similarly with statements of the "The US Army said it considers it probable that...", etc.
In this case--a straightforward factual statement about who they killed where in battle without any "we believe" or "possible" qualifiers--it is very likely that the information is accurate. It might not be the WHOLE story--it usually isn't--but it is almost certainly not made up.
In any case, with Iraq in particular, the "US Army is lying--let me tell you THE TRUTH!" camp had been so spectacularly and consistantly wrong in its claims throughout the entire Iraqi campaign, that by now I would probably believe a network calling itself "The Official US Army Propaganda Channel" over anything they say.
After all, if you actually are in the military and know something about Iraq, then even open propaganda occassionaly lets some true statements in, if only for versimilitude or to make the lies more effective; while the "evil US lying invaders" crowd is, for the most part, so utterly ignorant about Iraq and the middle east in general that just about nothing it claims as "the truth about Iraq" could even possibly be true.
Wildcat:
"You must admit, Karzai has accomplished an astounding feat: The first puppet leader to be elected in a fair, internationally monitored election! That must really piss you off, huh?"
Ah, the sun never sets in Wildcat World.
Yes, astounding feats! You are aware that MSF has pulled out, and that in actuallity, Karzai (the former UNOCAL Man--no coincidence there, methinks), doesn't even properly control Kabul and hardly dare step outside Kabul?
Here's what Karzai, the democracy loving former Unocal employee said at a press conference with Donald Rumsfeld:
"With regard to multiple registration of voters, we don’t really know if 1,000 people or 2,000 people or 3,000 people or 100,000 people have two registration cards. And as a matter of fact, it doesn’t bother me. If Afghans have two registration cards because they like to vote twice, well, welcome. This is an exercise, then let them exercise it twice. But it will not have an impact on the election."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcri...secdef1152.html
The Taliban are on the rise again as has already been said, and women are returning to wearing the Burqa. Widespread electoral fraud is suspected in the recent "elections".
And the heroin trade is up by something like 40-50% again. But I suppose that is because, as Rummy said "freedom is a beautiful thing....stuff happens"......???!!!??!!!!!
Interestingly enough, Karzai has had a few words himself to say on what help would count in Afghanistan. $27.5 billion would help , especially as "the country [is] still largely in ruins and plagued by a stubborn Taliban-led insurgency and militias run by regional warlords responsible for a worsening opium cultivation problem." Naturally, little help of the kind requested has been forthcoming.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=507129
Plenty of American money is going to Afghan warlords, however, forever spreading freedom and democracy!
"Now we pay the warlords to tyrannise the Afghan people"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1009416,00.html
Just another farce by the people who brought you "Uncle Sam".
"You must admit, Karzai has accomplished an astounding feat: The first puppet leader to be elected in a fair, internationally monitored election! That must really piss you off, huh?"
Ah, the sun never sets in Wildcat World.
Yes, astounding feats! You are aware that MSF has pulled out, and that in actuallity, Karzai (the former UNOCAL Man--no coincidence there, methinks), doesn't even properly control Kabul and hardly dare step outside Kabul?
Here's what Karzai, the democracy loving former Unocal employee said at a press conference with Donald Rumsfeld:
"With regard to multiple registration of voters, we don’t really know if 1,000 people or 2,000 people or 3,000 people or 100,000 people have two registration cards. And as a matter of fact, it doesn’t bother me. If Afghans have two registration cards because they like to vote twice, well, welcome. This is an exercise, then let them exercise it twice. But it will not have an impact on the election."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcri...secdef1152.html
The Taliban are on the rise again as has already been said, and women are returning to wearing the Burqa. Widespread electoral fraud is suspected in the recent "elections".
And the heroin trade is up by something like 40-50% again. But I suppose that is because, as Rummy said "freedom is a beautiful thing....stuff happens"......???!!!??!!!!!
Interestingly enough, Karzai has had a few words himself to say on what help would count in Afghanistan. $27.5 billion would help , especially as "the country [is] still largely in ruins and plagued by a stubborn Taliban-led insurgency and militias run by regional warlords responsible for a worsening opium cultivation problem." Naturally, little help of the kind requested has been forthcoming.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=507129
Plenty of American money is going to Afghan warlords, however, forever spreading freedom and democracy!
"Now we pay the warlords to tyrannise the Afghan people"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1009416,00.html
Just another farce by the people who brought you "Uncle Sam".
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Skeptic said:
(yawn)
E.J.Armstrong
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Messages
- 3,806
Awww... is Ziggurat upset, because he can't stop abusing others.
E.J.Armstrong
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Messages
- 3,806
Obviously the US army story of Jessica Lynch stands as a monument to this reliable truth.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm for some reality
'There was one more twist. Two days before the snatch squad arrived, Harith had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an ambulance.
But as the ambulance, with Private Lynch inside, approached a checkpoint American troops opened fire, forcing it to flee back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch. '
Oops. Caught red handed.
Again.