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)?BoredShirtless wrote: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.Rob Wilson wrote: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.Vympel wrote: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)
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?
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?BoredShirtless wrote:The concept of time apparently eludes you.Rob Wilson wrote: Lets look at the rest of it.Except that 3rd Infantry and 1st Marine are both currently outside An-NajafElements 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.
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.BoredShirtless wrote:So?Rob Wilson wrote: 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.
I've seen them outside Al-Najaf and yet they obviously hadn't truned around and rushed back anywhere.BoredShirtless wrote:You've watched un-interrupted, complete coverage of their progress from Basra to An-najaf?Rob Wilson wrote: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.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
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.BoredShirtless wrote:These intercepts are apparently undertaken by GRU, not journalists.Rob Wilson wrote:How do Russian journalists know what was said in a JCOS meeting, pray tell?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.
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?
BoredShirtless wrote:Again Russia has less reason to lie than the US and British.Rob Wilson wrote: 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).
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?
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.BoredShirtless wrote: Which proves nothing.
BoredShirtless wrote: It's probably best you take everything you hear with a mountain of salt.