Ok more guardian 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,921650,00.html
Is it true?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,921650,00.html
No SCUDs ???
Is it true?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
When are facts facts? Not in a war
- Thread starter pascal
- Start date
Did the miltary call them SCUDs, or did the media call them SCUDs? The media are clueless idiots who don't know the difference between a T-72 tank and a B-52 bomber.
I heard a report on BBC news, re. the first batch of Iraqi missile strikes, wherein a reporter talked about accompanying US technical officers (not sure of the exact phrase used) who had been sent to examine the impact of a strike. He had been told that the weapon was identified as a SCUD with 100% certainty.
The General's statement was either misquoted or this particular source/interviewee has some form of agenda.
It is patently incorrect to make a blanket statement such as "So far there have been no Scuds launched.." when Kuwait has had no less than six (6) documented missile launchings against it.
The official military press debriefings as aired on US media have made it clear that there is NO determinations at this time of what exact types of missiles were used, but the matter would likely be investigated and results fielded at a later time.
It's much like the recovered Chemical plant- from which no official (at least that I have seen reported) statement has been given that this has been properly investigated whether or not it's a chemical weapons facility.. or just a chemical facility (i.e. producing bug spray or paint thinner, etc.etc.).
It really doesn't matter WHAT missiles have been launched.. Be they SCUDS, Al Samoud or what-have-you. It also doesnt matter what the true purpose of the chemical facility is either. People see what they want to see. I'd bet if you could poll middle-eastern Al Jazeera viewers, they would poll an overwhelming majority that no missiles have been launched at all and that no chemical plant (normal or weapons) has been recovered. In fact, I'd bet there will be a number of folks responding that the earth is flat and George Bush is some sort of evil/religious figure fortold in prophecy.
It is patently incorrect to make a blanket statement such as "So far there have been no Scuds launched.." when Kuwait has had no less than six (6) documented missile launchings against it.
The official military press debriefings as aired on US media have made it clear that there is NO determinations at this time of what exact types of missiles were used, but the matter would likely be investigated and results fielded at a later time.
It's much like the recovered Chemical plant- from which no official (at least that I have seen reported) statement has been given that this has been properly investigated whether or not it's a chemical weapons facility.. or just a chemical facility (i.e. producing bug spray or paint thinner, etc.etc.).
It really doesn't matter WHAT missiles have been launched.. Be they SCUDS, Al Samoud or what-have-you. It also doesnt matter what the true purpose of the chemical facility is either. People see what they want to see. I'd bet if you could poll middle-eastern Al Jazeera viewers, they would poll an overwhelming majority that no missiles have been launched at all and that no chemical plant (normal or weapons) has been recovered. In fact, I'd bet there will be a number of folks responding that the earth is flat and George Bush is some sort of evil/religious figure fortold in prophecy.
Sharkfood the missles were not scuds
Scuds are a type of missle, not just any missle, the attacks on Kuwait were not with Scuds, and as had been reported by the Media, "the missles (which were not Scuds) were horribly inaccurate b/c they were not SCUDS" they actually said that as well. It is more like not knowing the difference between a F18, and an F15 or something than a tank, but I realize that was hyperbole.
Scuds are a type of missle, not just any missle, the attacks on Kuwait were not with Scuds, and as had been reported by the Media, "the missles (which were not Scuds) were horribly inaccurate b/c they were not SCUDS" they actually said that as well. It is more like not knowing the difference between a F18, and an F15 or something than a tank, but I realize that was hyperbole.
As to the topic of this thread, I believe its a fact (or close to it) when Gen Franks says something. He has generaly(no pun intended) been very straight foward. Has admit some mistakes. So if he says something Ill believe him.
later,
later,
Similar threads
- Replies
- 74
- Views
- 6K