Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3677)	3/27/2003 8:34:53 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

I am pointing out that it looks like your "embedded journalist" is misrepresenting the incident. He says Iraqis shot the aid queue. However, there are no dead nor wounded. He seems to overlook the very probable angle that it was the US & UK soldiers that they were firing at, not their own nationals in the queue. That is probably why none were hurt. Aren't you just thinking up excuses to disbelieve the story? More like pointing out the inconsistency in the story. If there were wounded & dead, you know and I know and so does everyone else, that it would be reported. We don't know whether whatever hit the marketplace was ours or not Well, then "you" have not read the last bit in my last post: In a later statement, US Central Command then seemed to confirm that the market in Baghdad had been hit by coalition missiles. “The missiles and launchers were placed in a civilian residential area, most positioned less than 300ft from homes. A full assessment of the operation is ongoing. The missiles were a threat to coalition forces.” timesonline.co.uk

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3677)	3/27/2003 8:55:09 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

A SAM does not create that much devastation on the ground...being designed to destroy aircraft. An aircraft is relatively small.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3677)	3/27/2003 9:14:07 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

Here's what a BBC correspondent in Baghdad says... A US military spokesman at coalition Central Command said: "Our early intelligence report provides no conclusive evidence that we have caused the damage in the civilian marketplace. One possibility and high probability is that it was caused from the fallout from the regime's anti-aircraft fire." But the BBC's Andrew Gilligan in Baghdad says that explanation is "unlikely because we simply haven't heard any anti-aircraft fire in the city for the past four days". news.bbc.co.uk Since hostilities, Saddam's propaganda has been rather better than ours... in that he doesn't appear to have made nearly so many false claims. This boosts his credibility. I really have to wonder how we can lose a conflict of credibility with this dictator, who's proven himself a liar in the past... perhaps a few of our PR people should be added to the front-line forces. And used as bumpers on the tanks.