Originally posted by Boroda
Well, Ramzaj reports were very interesting, and didn't contain obvious lies like "coalition" reports. Just remember how they captured Umm Quasr 6 or 7 times and "captured" all the 51st division. Having a source of information from other side is always good, especially if it isn't obvious propaganda like official Iraqi sources.
[/B]
You mistakenly assume that such events were lost on Western media when they most certainly were not. There were plenty of articles noting the fierceness of Iraqi paramilitary resistence in certain cities, and the Washington Post had a long piece about coalition troops under fire in An-Nasiriya. This material appears outside of CENTCOM sources.
Ramzaj suffered from a huge credibility problem. One day, they reported 50 Americans killed in one ambush, and another three units lost somewhere else. When it became apparant that these numbers were completely out of sync with the official numbers of coalition dead, they tried to cover their butts by stating (on 4/1/03):
"The official coalition losses are, to put it mildly, 'falling behind' the actual figures. The 57 dead acknowledged by the coalition command reflect losses as of the morning of March 26. This information was provided to a BBC correspondent by one of the top medical officials at a field hospital in Al Kuwait during a confidential conversation. 'We have standing orders to acknowledge only those fatalities that have been delivered to the hospital, identified and prepared to be sent back home. The identification process and the required standard embalming takes some time – occasionally up to several days. But only the command knows how many casualties we sustained today and you will learn about it in about three days…'"
And yet here we are, far more than three days later without any indication of the massive numbers of coalition dead indicated in the reports. Just how long
does it take to embalm someone anyway? This smells like horsecrap to me.
About pravda.ru: they don't have anything common with "Pravda", the official Communist party newspaper.
[/B]
Could've fooled me.
About your link in next message: what's so funny there? The nuclear waste facility is dangerous, and it's no joke...
Oh, gosh, I don't know... maybe the picture of a massive nuclear explosion and the headline "Nuclear Blast Near Baghdad" indicating something that happened rather than something that could happen?
Also the fact that the article has nothing at all to do with nuclear explosions could have something to do with it. I doubt that a Tomahawk missile would initiate a nuclear reaction that would set off some massive nuclear blast even if it
did smack into a mountain full of uranium.
-- Todd/Leviathn
