Ed US Cluster Bombed Misrata?

[Hans]

So, here we have a conspiracy theory based upon a forged photo. Kind of appropriate...

It was actually invisible helicopters lobbing the mortar rounds from barrels lashed to the fuselage. This fits with the evidence available, yet you're all

going for the disinfo of them being fired from warships. Sheeple...

Actually the mortar tubes were built into the infrastructure of the port decades ago - showing just how far in advance the evil NWO/Americans/[insert favorite evil group] plan ahead......dance sheeple dance!!

 

[Greedo]

Actually the mortar tubes were built into the infrastructure of the port decades ago - showing just how far in advance the evil NWO/Americans/[insert favorite evil group] plan ahead......dance sheeple dance!!

Wrong... wrong again. They were shot into an elliptical orbit by the ancient Sumerians / ancient astronauts to return precicely on April 13th. In fact, the whole Libya situation was planned just for this event. Our reptilian overlords are pleased.

BTT, or can we officially call "debunked" on this one?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Wrong... wrong again. They were shot into an elliptical orbit by the ancient Sumerians / ancient astronauts to return precicely on April 13th. In fact, the whole Libya situation was planned just for this event. Our reptilian overlords are pleased.

BTT, or can we officially call "debunked" on this one?

Of course, you can "call" that anytime you like. But it's not, of course. Just coming up with some insert NWO^TM cookie cutter duh-bunkings doesn't really cut it.

The allegation remains unproven but not disproved.

 

[Greedo]

Of course, you can "call" that anytime you like. But it's not, of course.
The allegation remains unproven but not disproved.

I have the feeling this thread is going nowhere. How exactly can it either be proven or disproven? It can't easily be. It can however, be looked at critically, and by doing so one can easily see how much water this theory that you so eagerly advocate holds.

What was the purpose of this thread in the first place?

Rational thinking is a handy thing.

Just coming up with some insert NWO^TM cookie cutter duh-bunkings doesn't really cut it.

Since you seem to be offended by my ridiculing use of the '™' somehow,
what exactly is your position here?

 

[Kid Eager]

Of course, you can "call" that anytime you like. But it's not, of course. Just coming up with some insert NWO^TM cookie cutter duh-bunkings doesn't really cut it.

The allegation remains unproven but not disproved.

I think a better word in this context is "unsubstantiated". Even calling it an allegation is giving it too much credence - it was more selection of self-serving supposition glued together with a tube of "what if".

 

[Greedo]

I think a better word in this context is "unsubstantiated". Even calling it an allegation is giving it too much credence - it was more selection of self-serving supposition glued together with a tube of "what if".

nicely said.

 

[geni]

Spot weld it to the deck? are you serious? Where on the deck? How would you aorganise power, fire control and ammunition handling?

It's a mortar. What do you need power for? Fire control? The thing is welded to the deck. Just point the ship in the dirrection you want it to fire. I would assume that a ship's crew is able to pick up and carry ammunition. There may not be much glammor is turning your nice warship into a 21st century equiv of a Bomb vessel but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I have the feeling this thread is going nowhere.

As the one who strated it, I should do something about that sense of futility.

First, there are a world of places to wind up going besides where you started out presuming you would. Secondly, I am learning too, just not jumping to admit defeat before some amazing blitzkrief of adequate logic. Some good points are raised, but just as much of this is badly confused and prematurely self-congratulatory.

We can't even agree on what this ship-based mortar is like - does it attach to the cannon, does the cannon itself fire the shell in some non-mortar version, is it a turret-mounted mortar unit that has to be fitted like a new turret, or is it a simple mortar you could fix to the deck and then aim with the ship? All versions have been floated, with contradictory arguments based on them. (From the pics I saw, I'm going with the third version, but I'm no expert either)

How exactly can it either be proven or disproven? It can't easily be.

True! Same goes for the Gaddafi crime version, yet it was reported as fact from day one. I only, mainly, protest that. And, noting that someone had to do it, testing out the alternative I've seen floated.

It can however, be looked at critically, and by doing so one can easily see how much water this theory that you so eagerly advocate holds.

What was the purpose of this thread in the first place?

Pretty much that. And as I said, some good points are made, but I just am not fully convinced that
1) The US didn't do this one way or another
2) That Libya did

And a difference in background is at work - I've spent nearly two years studying the Lockerbie bombing - which Libya was framed for - and unlike you, have become keenly aware they get framed for things. So to me, option 1 is not some kooky out there moonbat fantasy, as the too eager kid suggests with admirable eloquence, but a real possibility at least as precedented in actual fact as option 2 would be. I don't expect anyone else to take that view, but that's why I do.

I would like to see the conversation go beyond the weaponry aspect to considerations like relative motives. Someone raised the question of why was no one killed, leaving the episode so small and forgotten, if it were a false flag psyop. Here's a challenge: both of those problems - no deaths and eventual anonymity - could even better argue against a Libyan job. Who can glean how that is? Hint: consider the motive of the attackers in either case.

Rational thinking is a handy thing.



Since you seem to be offended by my ridiculing use of the '™' somehow,
what exactly is your position here?

It would take too long to explain fully, but you're new here, so I'll just let you know in brief. There are a lot of CT people, or screen names anyway, that espouse silliness in a silly way across the Internet, and are easy and fun to debunk and amusingly crazy. This place gets a lot of those.

Put short, I'm not one of them. I try to be a bit amusing, and I know I seem crazy, so it's understandable. But either way, apologies if I've been harsh on you, since you're new here and all.

 

[Kid Eager]

It's a mortar. What do you need power for? Fire control? The thing is welded to the deck. Just point the ship in the dirrection you want it to fire. I would assume that a ship's crew is able to pick up and carry ammunition. There may not be much glammor is turning your nice warship into a 21st century equiv of a Bomb vessel but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Yes, and if you want to play the flute, you blow in the hole and open and close the other holes with your fingers.

 

[Greedo]

... Secondly, I am learning too, just not jumping to admit defeat before some amazing blitzkrief of adequate logic. Some good points are raised, but just as much of this is badly confused and prematurely self-congratulatory.

So this is about winning?

True! Same goes for the Gaddafi crime version, yet it was reported as fact from day one. I only, mainly, protest that. And, noting that someone had to do it, testing out the alternative I've seen floated.

That's what the media does. They do it in every other topic too. Have you ever seen the media not jump to conclusions immediately? In a way it's a media war, the different news agencies have to spread the news so quickly, that there is often no time to quite evaluate the validity of claims. You can always correct yourself afterwards. This is not suspicious at all. While a bit alarming, it's the expected behavior of the media.

As for why the US/NATO reported it as fact from day one, couldn't it be that it is because they know they didn't do it?

And a difference in background is at work - I've spent nearly two years studying the Lockerbie bombing - which Libya was framed for - and unlike you, have become keenly aware they get framed for things....

How can you assume this?

Put short, I'm not one of them.

Great.

I try to be a bit amusing, and I know I seem crazy, so it's understandable.

Trying to be amusing on the internet, especially in text form, in discussions with a topic that is not the least bit amusing, generally fails.

But either way, apologies if I've been harsh on you

No need for that.

since you're new here and all.

I don't see the relevance of that.


Now as for me being a bit harsh on you, it comes from my background. I generally have a problem with conspiracy theorists.
I think we're both biased, in one way or another.


ETA: What exactly did you expect from posting a conspiracy theory in a skeptics forum other than it being (rightfully) debunked?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's a mortar. What do you need power for? Fire control? The thing is welded to the deck. Just point the ship in the dirrection you want it to fire. I would assume that a ship's crew is able to pick up and carry ammunition. There may not be much glammor is turning your nice warship into a 21st century equiv of a Bomb vessel but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Because the OP was proposing a Swedish double barrel Powered Mortar Turret.

I already mentioned it would be easier to set up a standard infantry Mortar on the Flight deck and fire off a few rounds. No 'spot welding' needed at all.
Of course the crew would know about it and you would have to get your warship to within 8000m.

WHy not just drop them from an aircraft or toss them out of a helicopter?

 

[Seismosaurus]

Why not simply take an M120 infantry mortar and use a ship's helicopter to fly it to shore? Set up, fire off a few rounds, break it down and fly back.

Course hundreds of people would know what you'd done...

 

[catsmate]

Why not simply take an M120 infantry mortar and use a ship's helicopter to fly it to shore? Set up, fire off a few rounds, break it down and fly back.

Course hundreds of people would know what you'd done...

Ahem.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Because the OP was proposing a Swedish double barrel Powered Mortar Turret.

That's what I seen, that's two votes agreeing across argument lines, and small progress. It can't just be slapped on by five guys as I thought, and I don't know how easy it'd be to have something equivalent fitted.

I think even HRI might have meant a smaller "swiftboat" or whatnot, pre-equipped, sent out.

The reason you'd do it from sea and not by air is to be silent and distant as possible. Surface-to-surface and stationary would fit either a ship off the coast or government forces outside the city.

Cover of night - more useful to which side? Which would be more concerned with and vulnerable to being spotted? The false-flagging US/NATO ship out on the open water but near enough to reach, or the entrenched Libyan forces in friendly territory around Misrata? I just thought of that.

So this is about winning?

That's what I thought seeing this above:

BTT, or can we officially call "debunked" on this one?

And anyway, it's an argument, so why wouldn't it be? If winning outright is possible, which it isn't. But relatively, points can be scored.

That's what the media does. They do it in every other topic too. Have you ever seen the media not jump to conclusions immediately? In a way it's a media war, the different news agencies have to spread the news so quickly, that there is often no time to quite evaluate the validity of claims. You can always correct yourself afterwards. This is not suspicious at all. While a bit alarming, it's the expected behavior of the media.

In this case, after a war has taken place ... and the record with Libya at least is of things reported and never corrected, piling up and fermenting.

As for why the US/NATO reported it as fact from day one, couldn't it be that it is because they know they didn't do it?

First, if NATO insisted the Libyans did this (hardly necessary), it could mean they know they themselves didn't do it, or, shockingly, that they know they did do it and had better blame someone else. Second, they didn't announce that, that I know of. It was HRW and the NYT that made that call. They clearly were in no position to know there was no NATO link to this weapon in NATO's arsenal and not, so far as we know, in Libya's. That later was allowed to fade into obscurity for some reason.

How can you assume this?

With a small guess. Was it wrong? When you see another allegation against Libya, do you think "hmmm, I wonder if this is another case like PA103 where they're just getting pinned?" My experience says most people don't, and tend to accept accusations at face value.

ETA: What exactly did you expect from posting a conspiracy theory in a skeptics forum other than it being (rightfully) debunked?

I expect and encounter some annoyance and upset tummies, wrongful (claimed) debunkings, and occasionally a right-on smack down, when I deserve it. But enough about me, sorry for the side-track ... maybe this theory is wrong, but it deserves more rigor than it's gotten yet.

 

[McHrozni]

True! Same goes for the Gaddafi crime version, yet it was reported as fact from day one. I only, mainly, protest that. And, noting that someone had to do it, testing out the alternative I've seen floated.

The likelyhood of "Quackdaffi crime theory" to any other theory floated out there, especially the one you put forward here, is more plausible. The ratio is of plausibility is somewhere close to avogadro number. I don't blame the media for jumping to the only rational conclusion out there and I don't see why anyone should.

Hint: You might have more luck by proposing the rebels did it to score points with international public. Unlike your version, it's at least remotely possible.

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

The likelyhood of "Quackdaffi crime theory" to any other theory floated out there, especially the one you put forward here, is more plausible.

Says a guy who refuse to ever use an accepted spelling of Gaddafi's name, in lieu of a permanent ridicule campaign. You're at least as biased as I am, and at least twice as ignorant about the supporting facts.

I don't usually like to use people's reasonable agreements with me back against them, but you did agree that the x-ray image used to support the snipers shooting little kids claim - also in Misrata, BTW - appears fake, as well as used twice on two different kids. And you've seen some of the power of the arguments that the Libyan Lockerbie line is a large lie.

So you know people have made up lies against the government there, before and during the current takeover campaign.

Therefore, at the very least, you couldn't rule out that it's happened again here, right? Call it less likely if your bias insists, but it's at least not impossible.

 

[Hans]

but it's at least not impossible.

just improbable

It is not impossible that your parents were replaced by aliens just after you were born but it is improbable.

 

[McHrozni]

Says a guy who refuse to ever use an accepted spelling of Gaddafi's name, in lieu of a permanent ridicule campaign. You're at least as biased as I am, and at least twice as ignorant about the supporting facts.

Woot, you can use ad hominem attacks. I'm impressed.

Well, not really.

I don't usually like to use people's reasonable agreements with me back against them, but you did agree that the x-ray image used to support the snipers shooting little kids claim - also in Misrata, BTW - appears fake, as well as used twice on two different kids. And you've seen some of the power of the arguments that the Libyan Lockerbie line is a large lie.

And you can also use red herrings. Wow, who can fight those arguments?!

Not that anyone needs to ...

Therefore, at the very least, you couldn't rule out that it's happened again here, right? Call it less likely if your bias insists, but it's at least not impossible.

As I said, I think your theory is to the order of magnitude 10²³ - times less likely than the most popular one. That doesn't mean it's ruled out, but it does make anyone purpoting it a quack, and quite likely a useful idiot.

Given the popularity of your argument, the useful part is probably a stretch.

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

Ooh, double zing, sorta. Nice tries, but I question your math.

I'll leave it there for my part, until I have anything else to add or see anything worthwhile added by anyone else. This is just one issue among hundreds.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's no different from all the threads Caustic Logic starts.