Rob Wilson makes me cry :)

[Rob Wilson]

11 Americans taken prisoner by Iraqi forces, 50 wounded in fierce fighting in Nasiriya.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/worl ... 030323.htm

Compare to this, which was up many hours ago:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news074.htm (the controversial source from iraqwar.ru)

OK, well it mentioned a firefight around Nasiriya, but it claimed that 10-15 tanks were destroyed and that 30 other vehicles were hit. Yet pictures of the fighting in Nasiriya show... small fire from buildings (reminiscent of Umm Qasr) and the reporters on the scene make no mention of destroyed armour.

How does "we haven't seen any pictures" prove the intel was wrong? If you're suggesting we need pictures before a story is believed, I'd like a couple of the 2 British Sea Kings in the drink. That Russian intel claimed they were the SAR varity, mission being to rescue downed pilots...and so today Al-Jazeera are reporting 2 pilots are being hunted in Baghdad. It's the Russian intel which is more probable when you add things up.

Hang on, Despite the fact the reporters confirmed there had been a Rescue operation and despite the fact the crash was at 0150 so the reporters wouldn't have seen it happen, you want pictures of it? How? Were the reporters psychic, and so had the camera's pointing at the crash area as it happened? I suppose you wanted zoomed pictures of ships in the dark, there's smething to broadcast There has however been no confirmation of the 10-15 tanks destroyed or 30 other vehicles (despite them showing other vehicles hit as they happen - Marine APCs) and as it was a supposed ongoing battle how come there was no mention of it (pictures or not)?

No onto the last part of that, how the hell has a Helicopter crash got anything to do with a supposed parachute sighting 36hrs later?

Lets look at the rest of it.

Elements of the US 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Infantry Division ended up in an exceptionally difficult situation. While attempting to encircle Basra from the north and to block An-Nasiriya elements the 3rd and 1st infantry divisions found themselves wedged between the defending Iraqi forces. The Iraqi command used this situation and delivered a decisive counterattack with up to 80 tanks in the open flank of the US forces, slicing through their combat orders. As the result of this counterattack these US units are now at risk of being separated from the main coalition forces and being surrounded.

Except that 3rd Infantry and 1st Marine are both currently outside An-Najaf

The concept of time apparently eludes you.

From someone trying to link to events seperated by 36hrs I find that funny. Now allow me to point out that the report quoted said th forces were surrounded and in danger of being cutoff, and juxtapose that with the fact they were at the time of my post reported to be unmolested and outside Al Najaf and perhaps you can understand the point made. The Rusian souce was lying in that quote, how are we to trust anything else they say?

and the reporter with them managed to completely miss out on this 80 tank counter-attack that apparently had them in danger of being cut off.

So?

Any other engagements are reported, this one though is not, and the fact the units mentioned have embedded reporters that were free to report any engagements but haven't mentioned thi supposed ecounter again points to the report being less than factual.

By 1100hrs MSK Iraqi units advanced into the US attack front by 10-15 kilometers and Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of the coalition forces, ordered his troops to switch entirely to defensive operations. At the same time he issued orders to the forward-deployed coalition tank units to halt their reconnaissance operations in the directions of Es-Samaba and An-Najaf and to move immediately to support the defending US forces. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that a part of the coalition tanks are currently disabled due to the lack of fuel and are awaiting the arrival of fuel convoys. Thus the tanks are able to gradually rejoin combat in small numbers as the fuel becomes available

All those watching the broadcasts from the lead units will be astounded by that bit of news as they went striaght from Basra to An-najaf without stopping/turning to rush back to defend their other units.

You've watched un-interrupted, complete coverage of their progress from Basra to An-najaf?

I've seen them outside Al-Najaf and yet they obviously hadn't truned around and rushed back anywhere.

The top US military command is planning to enhance the coalition command. During the Joint Chief of Staff meeting its Chairman Gen. Richard Mayers expressed strong criticism of the actions by the coalition commander Gen. Franks and proposed to strengthen his headquarters with several other senior military commanders.

How do Russian journalists know what was said in a JCOS meeting, pray tell?

These intercepts are apparently undertaken by GRU, not journalists.

Intercepts that I've already pointed out are impossible. Plus the quote specifically says it's commenting on the meeting itself, again I see no proof they had access to a JCOS meeting and little reason to trust a word they say. Have they bugged the War Room now?

At best this is them embellishing any facts they do get, to make it sound more newsworthy (Nasiriya), at worst they're just making shit up (the bits I quoted).

Again Russia has less reason to lie than the US and British.

True Rissia itself has no reason to lie, but then this is not a State-endorsed news site. I could put up a site claiming it's based on Intercepts of comms taken striaght from GCHQ, I could have written a far more convincing explaination for intercepting comms and you would happily trust it over any other source. They are making 99% of their shit up, and the rest is legitamte news stories with BS added to make it more interesting.

They're page explaining how they gain these intercepts is a fabrication, and if they are lying about that (the central premise of how they got the info they post), why trust anything else they say?

Which proves nothing.

They report eveything else, so why leave that out? The 'Intercept' site has no credibility, has been shown to lie on the basics of it's operation and is later than real news sites as to reporting news stories that can be corrobirated.

It's probably best you take everything you hear with a mountain of salt.

That at least is true. Even the credible news sources are censored, However that doesn't mean you should automatically trust another source just because it's not mainstream.

[Vympel]

DUDE- it was right there- no debates- I even had two topics split off for the purpose of debating .... I just .... I can't take it anymore

*blows brains out*

[Nathan F]

DUDE- it was right there- no debates- I even had two topics split off for the purpose of debating .... I just .... I can't take it anymore

*blows brains out*

It's not THAT bad man. You can handle it!

Hehe, over at SCN, there is a war topic, and I strictly told no one to turn it into a debate and threatened to close it if it happened, and, lo and behold, no one has.

Gotta be strict, man!

[Rob Wilson]

Dude- this thread was made *before* you posted again in the Breaking News thread. This was a joke- it's not my fault that you didn't see it. Check the dates and times.

Our timing is legendary, you post this at the same time I posted my apology . Anyway, bad fe days for me outside the Forum so when I saw this thread i didn't think i just ranted.

Next time I get high and mighty aout others posting in anger, just poke me with this thread.

[Vympel]

That's cool

Oh fuck I feel like Verilon- it is 4:00am over here ... ack .... going to sleep

[Rob Wilson]

That's cool

Oh fuck I feel like Verilon- it is 4:00am over here ... ack .... going to sleep

If you want, just delete the cranky reply from each of the 2 threads (just leave up the apology), that way they won't interfere with the flow of any debates (after all neither of them contributes anything to the threads).

[BoredShirtless]

OK, well it mentioned a firefight around Nasiriya, but it claimed that 10-15 tanks were destroyed and that 30 other vehicles were hit. Yet pictures of the fighting in Nasiriya show... small fire from buildings (reminiscent of Umm Qasr) and the reporters on the scene make no mention of destroyed armour.

How does "we haven't seen any pictures" prove the intel was wrong? If you're suggesting we need pictures before a story is believed, I'd like a couple of the 2 British Sea Kings in the drink. That Russian intel claimed they were the SAR varity, mission being to rescue downed pilots...and so today Al-Jazeera are reporting 2 pilots are being hunted in Baghdad. It's the Russian intel which is more probable when you add things up.

Hang on, Despite the fact the reporters confirmed there had been a Rescue operation and despite the fact the crash was at 0150 so the reporters wouldn't have seen it happen, you want pictures of it? How? Were the reporters psychic, and so had the camera's pointing at the crash area as it happened? I suppose you wanted zoomed pictures of ships in the dark, there's smething to broadcast

I said I'd like some photos.

There has however been no confirmation of the 10-15 tanks destroyed or 30 other vehicles (despite them showing other vehicles hit as they happen - Marine APCs) and as it was a supposed ongoing battle how come there was no mention of it (pictures or not)?

Maybe the embedded journalist was hiding? Could be many reasons why. I'm not trying to make excuses for these Russian analyses, I'm just saying it'd be silly to completely toss them in the trash because we have no-word-for-word confirmation from the mainstream media. The mainstream media are controlled by the Coalition, therefore can't be trusted to report complete accurate stories:

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops. Among the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not to disclose sensitive operational details. CNN's policy is to not report information that puts operational security at risk.

No onto the last part of that, how the hell has a Helicopter crash got anything to do with a supposed parachute sighting 36hrs later?

What parachute sighting, link?

Lets look at the rest of it.

Elements of the US 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Infantry Division ended up in an exceptionally difficult situation. While attempting to encircle Basra from the north and to block An-Nasiriya elements the 3rd and 1st infantry divisions found themselves wedged between the defending Iraqi forces. The Iraqi command used this situation and delivered a decisive counterattack with up to 80 tanks in the open flank of the US forces, slicing through their combat orders. As the result of this counterattack these US units are now at risk of being separated from the main coalition forces and being surrounded.

Except that 3rd Infantry and 1st Marine are both currently outside An-Najaf

The concept of time apparently eludes you.

From someone trying to link to events seperated by 36hrs I find that funny. Now allow me to point out that the report quoted said th forces were surrounded and in danger of being cutoff, and juxtapose that with the fact they were at the time of my post reported to be unmolested and outside Al Najaf and perhaps you can understand the point made. The Rusian souce was lying in that quote, how are we to trust anything else they say?

Time of Russian report:
March 22, 2003, 1300hrs MSK (GMT +3)

Time of your post:
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2003 12:01 pm

That's about a day of action you've missed.

and the reporter with them managed to completely miss out on this 80 tank counter-attack that apparently had them in danger of being cut off.

So?

Any other engagements are reported, this one though is not, and the fact the units mentioned have embedded reporters that were free to report any engagements but haven't mentioned thi supposed ecounter again points to the report being less than factual.

Are you sure that embedded reporters are free to report any engagements? Could be a tactical advantage not to report all engagements.

All those watching the broadcasts from the lead units will be astounded by that bit of news as they went striaght from Basra to An-najaf without stopping/turning to rush back to defend their other units.

You've watched un-interrupted, complete coverage of their progress from Basra to An-najaf?

I've seen them outside Al-Najaf and yet they obviously hadn't truned around and rushed back anywhere.

Really? Where are they now Rob?

The top US military command is planning to enhance the coalition command. During the Joint Chief of Staff meeting its Chairman Gen. Richard Mayers expressed strong criticism of the actions by the coalition commander Gen. Franks and proposed to strengthen his headquarters with several other senior military commanders.

How do Russian journalists know what was said in a JCOS meeting, pray tell?

These intercepts are apparently undertaken by GRU, not journalists.

Intercepts that I've already pointed out are impossible.

So it's impossible to intercept US military radio comm?

Plus the quote specifically says it's commenting on the meeting itself, again I see no proof they had access to a JCOS meeting and little reason to trust a word they say. Have they bugged the War Room now?

Yeah that one looks dodgy to me too.

At best this is them embellishing any facts they do get, to make it sound more newsworthy (Nasiriya), at worst they're just making shit up (the bits I quoted).

Again Russia has less reason to lie than the US and British.

True Rissia itself has no reason to lie, but then this is not a State-endorsed news site. I could put up a site claiming it's based on Intercepts of comms taken striaght from GCHQ, I could have written a far more convincing explaination for intercepting comms and you would happily trust it over any other source. They are making 99% of their shit up, and the rest is legitamte news stories with BS added to make it more interesting.

FYI these reports disputed media stories of the capture of Um Quasr and surrender of Iraqi 51st Infantry Division...can you explain how they where later vindicated by the mainstream media if they are making 99% of their shit up?

They're page explaining how they gain these intercepts is a fabrication, and if they are lying about that (the central premise of how they got the info they post), why trust anything else they say?

I already gave a reason for that explaination of intercepts.

And as to them printing news of resistance to the advance ahead of the reputable news sources, this was online several hours beforehand

Elsewhere, the US 3rd Infantry Division has pushed into the centre of the country before running into resistance at the city of Nasiriya - a key crossing point over the Euphrates river on the way to Baghdad.

The BBC's Gavin Hewitt, who is travelling with the division, says the enormous convoy of tanks and armoured vehicles has engaged Iraqi forces with artillery and rocket launchers.

Strange how he left out the enemy armoured thrust through the lines.

Which proves nothing.

They report eveything else, so why leave that out?
[/quote]

Rubbish, they are heavily censored by the division they're in.

The 'Intercept' site has no credibility, has been shown to lie on the basics of it's operation and is later than real news sites as to reporting news stories that can be corrobirated.

You've showed no such thing.

So yes, I still take everything from the Intercept site with a small mountain of salt.

It's probably best you take everything you hear with a mountain of salt.

That at least is true. Even the credible news sources are censored, However that doesn't mean you should automatically trust another source just because it's not mainstream.[/quote]

Wait you said they report "everything", now they're "censored", can you make up your mind? Can you provide a quote where I claim to trust this site by itself?