More firepower uncovered 25/11/2004
Wonder if this will make the nightly news services?
Mass weapons of destruction have been discovered in Fallujah, according to US-unfriendly agency, Reuters.
NEAR FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) – Arab militants and insurgents who ruled the volatile city of Falluja before a U.S.-led offensive this month had enough weapons to take over all of Iraq, Marine officers said on Wednesday.
“We found enough weapons in Falluja for the insurgency to take over the whole country,” Lieutenant Colonel Dan Wilson told a news conference at a U.S. base near the western city.
slatts slatts slatts. How many times have I told you to examine the claims before declaring they are true?
You argue that “mass weapons of destruction have been discoverd in Fallujah according to US-unfriendly Reuters”
Wrong Wrong Wrong.
Rueters merely reported the claims of a US soldier. They did not pass judgement on the accuracy of those claims.
According to Reuters, a US soldier HAS SAID they have discovered huge weapons caches in Fallujah. That is a big difference to your assumption that according to Reuters the US military have found huge weapons caches in Fallujah.
In war, more than anywhere else, claims are not facts. Even a first year journo student knows this.
Remember how Infomation Ali said the Iraqi Army had the US on the run. (too funny) The same goes for the US spin merchants who claimed major combat operations are over and said “mission accomplished”. (that was a load of crap too).
I am willing to concede some weapons have been seized and there is evidence of road side bomb factories. Nothing unexpected there.
The claims about massive weapons caches may turn out to be true, but you are certainly not in the position to assume they are. Note that there are plenty of hacks with egg on their faces after arguing Iraq definitely had WMDs.
As i have said before, you grab anything and twist it to support a pre-determined opinion.
It is very sad.
Splitting hairs dickhead. Only way you can find your weanie? If it’s in the Herald Sun tomorrow, plenty will say “according to the Herald Sun” and everyone will know what that means.
Of course, it all depends on the accuracy of the source, but the disseminator makes a judgement on that accuracy, hence “according to Reuters”. Anyway, I take it you don’t believe these weapons have been found. So be it. You’re entitled to be wrong. You’re good at it. Now FUCK OFF, anonymous coward.
Splitting hairs my arse. Slatts I am just pointing out the obvious.
Military propaganda has been going on long before the British created images of a German soldier bayonetting a nun on Hampstead Heath in ww1. Virtually everyone one in the world knows the first casualty of war is the truth except you, ex Senator Alston and a handful of woeful bloggers.
It is truly embarassing that despite a long history of propaganda from all sides, you grab hold of material from an army PR department and broadcast it as if Moses had written it in stone.
I believe you have to be cruel to be kind, and my brutal critique of your work can only make you a better blogger. Maybe if you took my advice you wouldn’t get nominated for wanker of the week.
Let’s just analyse one little bit of your last post.
You argue, “Anyway, I take it you don’t believe these weapons have been found. So be it. You’re entitled to be wrong.” Did you read my post? I clearly said the weapons find may well be true but you are not in the position to assume it is. Firstly you assume my position to be totally the opposite of what I just said, and secondly you assume my assumed position is wrong.
Do you see a problem with your analysis from your position behind a keyboard 10,000km from the battlefield?
Slatts, take it as a complement that I have taken time out of my busy schedual in an attempt to help you out, and remember BE SCEPTICAL.
Love
Your favourite Scotsman.
Look who has the gall to adopt a patronising tone:
The cockhead didn’t even have the wits to scan the home page and link to the headlined story. Instead he claimed it had been pulled by the publisher because it was plainly untrue.
“mission accomplished” was on a banner of the Air-craft carrier that was going home, jockman. And the major combat operations was over, you contextually challenged dick head.
OK Slatts, I got it wrong re the Army’s story being pulled from the site when it was only archived, but it’s credibility is still in question. Where are the photos of weapons stockpiles? All I saw was one crate. Hardly enough to rule Iraq with. Where is video footage of the weapons find? Surely if the story had legs the US Army would broadcast this type of image to the world.
Now will you admit you shamelessly attributed a claim from a partisan soldier turning it into a claim from a highly regarded news agency?
Will you also admit the US Army’s PR department is not a very reliable source?
Don’t hold out on me slatts?
On what evidence do have that the soldier was partisan,jockman ?
CHINA yesterday denied reports it was placing troops on its border with North Korea, according to the Herald Sun’s web site.
Does anyone rational have a problem with that observation?
Slatts you have a major problem with the phrase “according to…”.
Firstly you used this phrase to turn a claim from a US military spokesperson into a fact from a highly regarded news agency. That’s crap and you know it. Just admit it and move on.
Secondly you don’t seem to even understand the reason why real journalists use the term.
I will help you out on this one.
1. The phrase allows journalists to highlight a claim is not a fact. eg The Age “According to the PM children were thrown OB” The Herald Sun “Children were throw OB”. See the difference. Who has more credibility?
2. It covers your arse when reporting other journos stories. eg “According to two news organisations in the UK a terrorist plot was foiled by…”. Every journo makes mistakes. Even the good ones. Use this phrase wisely and often. This is something you rarely do.
3. Always use the phrase with partisan sources who don’t mind “feeding the chooks”, eg a military spokesperson or politician
4. Some journos use it mischivously. eg “According to academics/insiders etc…” Which ones? names please. This tactic is sometimes used by ratbags to introduce commentary to a story. The tabloids do it all the time.
5. This is similar to Fox’s “Some people say…” or shockjocks who claim “I have a letter from a listener saying…”
6. This is a method of getting a racist message out to the audience without it coming directly from the presenter. Great way to avoid racial vilification legislation.
And finally, Gary asks “What evidence do you have the soldier is partisan?”. For fuck sake, that is a truly embarassing comment.
Ock Aye
“6. This is a method of getting a racist message out to the audience without it coming directly from the presenter. Great way to avoid racial vilification legislation.”
Like calling the soldier is partisan (with out evidence) to insinuate he is lying to avoid a liable suit.
Since you like speculating so much jockman , I will do some of my own a say your rhetoric is a lot similar to another HACK that infested this place not that long ago.
Oh Please Gary, you clearly don’t have a clue about defamation law or reporting wars.
All armies carefully control the flow of information to the media. This is especially the case after Vietnam.They don’t just let any boob comment about a battle. That is the job of a specific soldier with a very specific message. It is called PR moron. Businesses, Football clubs, NGOs, governments etc all use highly developed filters to get the message out. Are you seriously suggesting the US Army get a non-partisan independent commentator to report “a major weapons find”?
As far as a libel suit, have you even considered how difficult it is to track down an anonymous poster (slatts knows it’s hard), on a pitiful website, in a foreign country, and, bring about a sucessful lawsuit despite the first amendment of the US constitution?
Gary, you are not up to speed. Go back to school and learn something before your next post.
You don’t have to have been to Scotland to know it’s full of cunts either
That wasn’t very constructive was it murph? (In my most patronising tone)
Do us all a favour and don’t post at all you cretin. You lecture about journalism and yet so far you have libelled me, shown scant knowledge of internet publishing and labelled me a “pigmie”. Big time media expert!!!!
Lying arsehole. A few months back when you were trolling here under another name, you libelled me. You even apologised. The madness playing tricks with your memory?
“a fact from a highly regarded news agency. That’s crap and you know it.”
Within jockman’s solipsistic little dreamworld, an unexpected flash of truth interrupts his panglossian slumbers…
Jockman, Awake! Leave the cave!