Geoff Hoon, Robert Fisk and reporting the truth

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Nicolas Benicoeur

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 10:42:06 AM4/4/03
to
The Independent
Leading Artices
Geoff Hoon, Robert Fisk and reporting the truth
04 April 2003

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, is a smooth politician who relies on
nuance to do his dirty work. He did not say, in plain terms, that he
disbelieves The Independent's accounts of civilian casualties sustained in
Iraq. He did not say that Robert Fisk, our award-winning reporter, is a
willing dupe of Saddam Hussein's regime. He simply allowed those suggestions
to hang, unspoken, in the House of Commons chamber yesterday.

"A piece of a cruise missile was handed to the journalist," he said, to
explain how we were able to publish the serial number of the missile likely
to have been responsible for the second Baghdad marketplace explosion last
Friday, which killed about 62 civilians.

Robert Fisk has a proud record of reporting what he sees. He has travelled
to dangerous places and described unflinchingly what is happening. He
prefers to speak to the people caught up in conflicts rather than report
what the generals, politicians and spokesmen are saying.

Any careful reader of his reports from Iraq would know that he holds no
brief for the Saddam regime. Indeed, he was among the first journalists to
report Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. Anyone who
read his reporting of the Kosovo war will remember that, when Nato
headquarters denied that its aircraft had hit civilian convoys, he went to
the spot on the ground where the missiles fell and found the markings on
casings of US munitions. Nato spokesmen later admitted responsibility.

Mr Hoon's handling of the news from this war has been characterised by
exaggeration, half-truth and backtracking. It was Mr Hoon who claimed on BBC
Radio that local people had "certainly" risen up in Basra. When asked how he
knew, he blustered. It does not seem to have been wholly true. It was Mr
Hoon who claimed that chemical suits found by advancing coalition troops
showed "categorically" that Saddam was preparing to use chemical weapons, to
be contradicted by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff,
who warned against jumping to conclusions. Last night, the MoD was forced to
concede that an estimate of PoW numbers given only hours earlier by Mr Hoon
was wildly inaccurate.

Yesterday's innuendo against this newspaper and our correspondent was a
miserable attempt to brush aside unwelcome truths. This is no way to
reassure a doubtful British public that the Government genuinely wants to
minimise civilian casualties, rather than simply the reporting of them.


John

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 10:57:31 AM4/4/03
to

"Nicolas Benicoeur" <dontspam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6k94f$68cak$1...@ID-186693.news.dfncis.de...

Does Robert "know" where those missile parts came from?? No... of course
not... he just believed what the fascist Iraqi propaganda minister showed
and told him. Why would he so willingly believe one of the most tyrannical
regimes on the planet? It is just as likely Saddam's own thugs blew up the
market.

John


Nicolas Benicoeur

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 11:02:53 AM4/4/03
to
> Does Robert "know" where those missile parts came from?? No... of course
> not... he just believed what the fascist Iraqi propaganda minister showed
> and told him. Why would he so willingly believe one of the most
tyrannical
> regimes on the planet? It is just as likely Saddam's own thugs blew up
the
> market.

The Ministry Of Mendacity Strikes Again
By Robert Fisk
The Independent - UK
4-3-3

Poor old Geoff Hoon. It must be tough having to defend the indefensible
when the Americans insist on plastering their missiles with computer
codes that reveal their provenance even after they have blown the
innocent to pieces. Take the poor old man - far poorer in every way
than Mr Hoon - who produced that telling scrap of fuselage at Shu'ala
last week, proving that the missile which hit the dirt-poor Shia Muslim
slums was made by Raytheon, manufacturers of the cruise missile.

The Iraqi intelligence service is a brutal, crude organisation, but
subtlety and sophistication are not its strong points. To suggest that
President Saddam's goons could have turned up in the slums - amid a
population known for its hatred of the Iraqi Baath party and possibly
responsible for killing a number of its apparatchiks - and persuaded
these largely illiterate people to tell a complicated lie to foreign
journalists is beyond credibility. There were many bits of the same
wretched missile all over Shu'ala. I collected five pieces myself, made
of the same alloy, two of them dug out of the muck with my own hands.

Does Mr Hoon really think the Iraqi torturers have the ability to go
about these hostile slums, burying obscure pieces of shrapnel for the
likes of The Independent to dig up there? Does he think that the uncle
of one of the dead men could make up his description of seeing the
aircraft bank away after the attack? So, too, the two missiles that
struck the Sha'ab district of Baghdad earlier in the week. Again, they
exploded amid Shia Muslim slums, homes of the very people who most
oppose President Saddam's regime. I had heard an aircraft fly over
Baghdad and fire two missiles at an army barracks a little earlier - I
was amused to note that Mr Hoon did not question this air attack - and
at least three men in Sha'ab talked to me about the plane they heard
at the time of the missile strike.

These were not members of President Saddam's regime, as Mr Hoon libels
them; they were the very people indeed whom Mr. Hoon has sworn to
"liberate" from the Iraqi leader. And the two explosions occurred
exactly opposite each other, one on each side of the dual carriageway
in Sha'ab. Does Mr Hoon think the Iraqis were able to stage two
identical explosions - from the air - at exactly equidistant points in
a street packed with cars, pedestrians, apartment doormen, restaurant
workers and car repair boys? But I suppose it's the familiar, world-weary
mendacity of the Hoon statement that is most pathetic. After the
Americans bombed Libya in 1985, we were treated to the same nonsense.

The civilian dead were killed by the Libyan secret service or by
Libya's anti-aircraft fire. The Israelis had claimed the same about
many of the 17,500 dead of their 1982 Lebanon invasion. When the
Americans slaughtered dozens of Albanian refugees in Kosovo in 1999,
they claimed Serb aircraft had committed the massacre, until The
Independent discovered the missile parts, again dug out of the craters
with my own hands, which contained the computer codings that forced
Nato to admit the truth.

How many times, I wonder, do ministers think they can con their
electorate with this miserable routine? How often will the likes of
David Blunkett smear journalists for reporting "from behind enemy
lines" in a war that his government supports but which many millions
of Britons refuse to acknowledge as legitimate? I cannot help
remembering an Iranian hospital train on which I travelled back from
the Iran-Iraq war front in the early 1980s. The carriages were packed
with young Iranian soldiers, coughing mucus and blood into
handkerchiefs while reading Korans. They had been gassed and looked as
if they would die. Most did. After a few hours, I had to go around and
open the windows of the compartments, because the gas coughed back
from their lungs was beginning to poison the air in the carriage.

At the time, I was working for The Times. My story ran in full. Then
an official of the Foreign Office lunched my editor and told him my
report was "not helpful". Because, of course, we supported President
Saddam at the time and wanted revolutionary Iran to suffer and destroy
itself. President Saddam was the good guy then. I wasn't supposed to
report his human rights abuses. And now I'm not supposed to report the
slaughter of the innocent by American or RAF pilots because the
British Government has changed sides.

It's a tactic worthy of only one man I can think of, a master of playing
victim when he is in the act of killing, a man who thinks nothing of
smearing the innocent to propagate his own version of history. I'm
talking about Saddam Hussein. Geoff Hoon has learnt a lot from him.

snout46

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 5:55:54 PM4/4/03
to
hey! hey! bloodstained Blair
how many kids have you killed today ?

Adrian & Marta Bailey

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 11:31:05 AM4/4/03
to
"Nicolas Benicoeur" <dontspam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6k94f$68cak$1...@ID-186693.news.dfncis.de...
> The Independent
> Leading Artices
> Geoff Hoon, Robert Fisk and reporting the truth
> 04 April 2003
>
> Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, is a smooth politician who relies on
> nuance to do his dirty work. He did not say, in plain terms, that he
> disbelieves The Independent's accounts of civilian casualties sustained in
> Iraq. He did not say that Robert Fisk, our award-winning reporter, is a
> willing dupe of Saddam Hussein's regime. He simply allowed those
suggestions
> to hang, unspoken, in the House of Commons chamber yesterday.

Goon was pretty poor on Today (or was it 5Live? - I switch between the two,
especially if John Reid is in the offing) this morning - the interviewer had
him on the ropes on the cluster bomb issue but let him off the hook, if I
may be allowed to mix my metaphors...

Adrian


Sweet Snack

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 11:52:26 AM4/4/03
to

I heard that too. It was John Humphreys on Radio 4.
I get the impression that the awkward questions and incisiveness are just
performed enough to prove the "Freedom" of the media but not enough to
cause any real discomfort to the politicians.
>

--
Sugar Butty --- Munch Me

ny...@worldonline.co.uk

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 12:11:46 PM4/4/03
to

John <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LXhja.6720$aQ3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

You are so right John!, it is also quite likely that Shrubs own thugs blew
up the market, it is why it is called the fog of war:-))


Stephen Magpie

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 12:31:10 PM4/4/03
to
"John" <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote
>
> Does Robert "know" where those missile parts came from?? No... of course
> not... he just believed what the fascist Iraqi propaganda minister showed
> and told him. Why would he so willingly believe one of the most tyrannical
> regimes on the planet? It is just as likely Saddam's own thugs blew up the
> market.

Go back and read the article. There is no Iraqi minister involved. Is
there someone more believable? Are democrats so much more honest?

Hotblack Desiato

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 1:08:14 PM4/4/03
to

"snout46" <snout46@trough_of_human.blood> wrote in message
news:o93s8vktrja33bd4i...@4ax.com...

> hey! hey! bloodstained Blair
> how many kids have you killed today ?

That doesn't quite work does it ?? what about
Bush, Blair, CIA
How many kids you killed today

or maybe
World Bank, IMF
How many kids you starved to death


Nicolas Benicoeur

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 1:53:53 PM4/4/03
to
> Goon was pretty poor on Today (or was it 5Live? - I switch between the
two,
> especially if John Reid is in the offing) this morning - the interviewer
had
> him on the ropes on the cluster bomb issue but let him off the hook, if I
> may be allowed to mix my metaphors...

John Reid was announced as Robin Cook's replacement for Leader of the House
today.. I think the British people have been severely undersold. To go from
a prodigious talent and architect of British ethical foreign policy to a
grovelling, Blairite Yes-Man.


Ian Bailey

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 3:17:16 PM4/4/03
to
"John" <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<LXhja.6720$aQ3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
> Does Robert "know" where those missile parts came from?? No... of course
> not... he just believed what the fascist Iraqi propaganda minister showed
> and told him. Why would he so willingly believe one of the most tyrannical
> regimes on the planet? It is just as likely Saddam's own thugs blew up the
> market.
>
> John


You are so right. The evil Iraqi regime fabricated the parts to look
like Raytheon-produced cruise missiles, right down to the part number
and made in the USA stencils, then buried them in the very same
marketplace which they blew up themselves. How dare people like Robert
Fisk report what they see with their own eyes. Its unpatriotic.

Ian

Steve Smith

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 3:33:42 PM4/4/03
to
"Sweet Snack" <Sugar...@hateandsmile.com> wrote in message
news:ordr8vsiibas2sine...@4ax.com...

There was only so far Humphreys could get with that line of questioning,
after having launched his big missiles. Hoon did not raise the issue of
mothers who would not loose their children because the repressive Ba'athist
were gone either. It was a typical load of Today emotive bollox shite
IMHO.

Steve

John

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 4:01:52 PM4/4/03
to

"Ian Bailey" <ianb...@orange.net> wrote in message
news:984a2ef1.03040...@posting.google.com...

Fisk reported what he saw. He does not have open access and is only allowed
to see whatever the propaganda ministers want the reporters to see. That is
why the Iraqi's have expelled most western journalist. And he or no one
else knows where those missile parts came from. They could have easily been
placed there (as any moron could conclude).

Either way... the coalition has been TOO cautious in MHO, even to the point
of getting our guys killed. To not tell THAT story is truly the BIG LIE.

John


Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 5:08:50 PM4/4/03
to
On 4 Apr 2003 12:17:16 -0800, ianb...@orange.net (Ian Bailey) wrote:

>"John" <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<LXhja.6720$aQ3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>>
>> Does Robert "know" where those missile parts came from?? No... of course
>> not... he just believed what the fascist Iraqi propaganda minister showed
>> and told him. Why would he so willingly believe one of the most tyrannical
>> regimes on the planet? It is just as likely Saddam's own thugs blew up the
>> market.
>>
>> John
>
>
>You are so right. The evil Iraqi regime fabricated the parts to look
>like Raytheon-produced cruise missiles, right down to the part number
>and made in the USA stencils,

Very nice of Mr Fisk to provide the raytheon part number for an AGM-88 anti
radar missile. One must discount ignorant speculation about it being a
raytheon cruise missile, as the 1000lb unitary warhead with its energetic
filling would have left a rather large size crater and not much in the way
of buildings nearby.


So either the iraqis had active military radars/missiles in a crowded
market place, and the resulting secondaries from its destruction by the
AGM-88 caused the damage displayed

*or*

an Iraqi SA2 surface to air missile

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/v-75.htm

didn't self distruct at the end of its flight as it should and ploughed its
200 kilo blast fragmentation warhead into the market place, something they
have a long and annoying history of doing.

*or*

the Iraqis caused the explosion and planted the material they collected
from elsewhere, using an sympathetic western hack whose overt anti american
bias would ensure that he wouldnt look a gift horse in the mouth.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm

The 45lb of explosives in an AGM-88 warhead wouldn't even come close to
causing level of damage as filmed.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Büch dich befehl ich dir wende dein Antlitz ab von mir
dein Gesicht ist mir egal büch dich

Stephen Magpie

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 5:35:50 PM4/4/03
to
"Nicolas Benicoeur" <dontspam...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> John Reid was announced as Robin Cook's replacement for Leader of the House
> today.. I think the British people have been severely undersold. To go from
> a prodigious talent and architect of British ethical foreign policy to...

You have to be taking the piss. Cook, architect of ethical foreign
policy? That was a slogan like 'education education education,'
meaningless dishonest bullshit. Cook will never wash the blood of his
time as foreign sec off his hands.

PoliticoDigital

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 8:45:22 PM4/4/03
to
ianb...@orange.net (Ian Bailey) wrote in
news:984a2ef1.03040...@posting.google.com:

>
> You are so right. The evil Iraqi regime fabricated the parts to look
> like Raytheon-produced cruise missiles, right down to the part number
> and made in the USA stencils, then buried them in the very same
> marketplace which they blew up themselves. How dare people like Robert
> Fisk report what they see with their own eyes. Its unpatriotic.
>
> Ian
>

the best conterfit of them all

i loved those imatation of cluster bombs ... you know those you spread them
selfs, and explode sending schrappnel in every direction and as they are
made in britain by the glorious british people they don't even hurt
civilian

- they have inteligent schrappnel .. they fly ... see a civilian and drop
to the ground

oh those order from saddam to british goverment of tons of schrappnel were
to disperse in civilian locations so the americans and the brits look bad

i see ... the evil mind of saddam working

he even order cruise missiles ... shalow of course to be more cheap .... so
he could put them in those recent bonbed civilian markets

alll regime propaganda


PoliticoDigital

unread,
Apr 4, 2003, 8:48:02 PM4/4/03
to
Greg Hennessy <spamc...@example.com> wrote in
news:4mur8vca2hj5nnv5t...@4ax.com:

>
> the Iraqis caused the explosion and planted the material they
> collected from elsewhere, using an sympathetic western hack whose
> overt anti american bias would ensure that he wouldnt look a gift
> horse in the mouth.
>


if hollywood know you imagination they will contract you

send me your card and i' ll show it to a producer of bombing civilians
films


Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 1:48:14 AM4/5/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:

> So either the iraqis ...

Or a 'coalition' missile hit a crowded market place. I'm no expert, but
isn't there a difference between the total weight of a warhead and the
weight of the explosives it carries? You cite the 45 lb of explosives in
the AGM-88 warhead, yet the 200 kilo overall weight of the SA-2 warhead.
The AG-88 warhead actually weighs about 143 lb.

I agree that this is still significantly less than the SA-2 - but wonder
why you didn't use more easily comparable figures.

Martin

Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 4:57:50 AM4/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 08:48:14 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:

>Greg Hennessy wrote:
>
>> So either the iraqis ...
>
>Or a 'coalition' missile hit a crowded market place.

Fisk produced wreckage with a Raytheon part number and quoted it in his
article. He claims he found it nearby.

Raytheon make AGM-88 HARMS and cruise missiles, cruise can be discounted
given the level of observed damage and lack of cratering as can free fall
bombs with precision guidance kits for the same reason.

> I'm no expert, but
>isn't there a difference between the total weight of a warhead and the
>weight of the explosives it carries? You cite the 45 lb of explosives in
>the AGM-88 warhead, yet the 200 kilo overall weight of the SA-2 warhead.
>The AG-88 warhead actually weighs about 143 lb.

True. Slight difference in terminal purpose between the two though.

>I agree that this is still significantly less than the SA-2 - but wonder
>why you didn't use more easily comparable figures.

That's because I haven't found an agreed figure on what SA2 case to filler
ratio is, I've seen figures of 125-150 kgs of HE quoted for the SA2
depending on whose knock off copy they are using.

Of course the difference between the two would be moot for a missile that
had failed to self destruct and was falling on a ballistic arc towards a
crowded market place.

The SA2 as likely used by Iraq has a 180-200kg proximity fused blast frag
warhead designed primarily to kill US heavy bombers, terminal accuracy in
the 50s wasnt anything like it is today, hence the size requirement.

The FAS figures quote 130kg of filler with a blast radius for severe
aircraft damage at over 100 metres. Its proximity fused detonation would
not have left much in the way of a crater. So that's 280 odd lbs of HE in
the SA2 versus 43 in the HARM.

The HARM is designed to destroy radar antennas and what they are mounted
on. Its optimised towards directional fragmentation rather than blast,
hence its > 3:1 case to filler ratio.

I am sure US would love to discover a stable compound, such that 43lbs of
it in a unitary warhead would cause that level of damage.

Steve Glynn

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 5:09:12 AM4/5/03
to

"Stephen Magpie" <sm...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:b8da56.030404...@posting.google.com...

Seconded! Cook and his 'ethical foreign policy' were a bad joke. To be
fair to Cook, the whole crackpot idea of 'an ethical foreign policy' wasn't
actually his -- he'd had it wished on him by St Tone who'd been told that
focus groups quite liked the idea, rather in the same way people rather like
the idea of 'ethical investment trusts' as opposed to unethical ones. or
'environmentally friendly products' as opposed to envionmentally hostile
ones.

This kind of market appeal is very important if you're trying to market a
brand to specific target groups, along with the organic frozen Tiramisu and
New World wines at Waitrose, though not necessarily the best way of
conducting a foriegn policy, as poor old Cook found out when he took the
fall for yet another collision between The People's Saint's pious
aspirations and brute reality.

Steve


Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 5:13:21 AM4/5/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:

> Fisk produced wreckage with a Raytheon part number and quoted it in his
> article. He claims he found it nearby.
>
> Raytheon make AGM-88 HARMS and cruise missiles, cruise can be discounted
> given the level of observed damage and lack of cratering as can free fall
> bombs with precision guidance kits for the same reason.

Seriously, do *all* cruise missiles have such heavy warheads as your
answer implies?

Martin

Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 5:56:33 AM4/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 12:13:21 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:


>


>Seriously, do *all* cruise missiles have such heavy warheads as your
>answer implies?


Not *all* cruise missiles.

However Raytheon manufactured ones in service with the US air force and
Navy come with a choice of a 1000lb unitary warhead, sub munitions
dispenser or a 'special' option.

Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 8:30:56 AM4/5/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:

>
> However Raytheon manufactured ones in service with the US air force and
> Navy come with a choice of a 1000lb unitary warhead, sub munitions
> dispenser or a 'special' option.

Could stray sub munitions not have caused an explosion of the magnitude
necessary to kill these people?

Martin

Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 8:55:33 AM4/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 15:30:56 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:

>


>Could stray sub munitions not have caused an explosion of the magnitude
>necessary to kill these people?


Unlikely for two reasons,

Firstly the dispenser carries IIRC approximately 150 bomblets, the blast
from something weighing around a kilo and optimised for anti vehicle/anti
personnel use would not have caused that sort of structural damage.

Secondly given a failure rate of 2-5% there would have been some UXO
indicating their use.

Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 9:39:48 AM4/5/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:

> Unlikely for two reasons...

So, if I get your earlier posts right, we now have theories:

a) Fisk was lying or had been deceived - in which case any explanation
is possible.

b) The fragment was genuine and found near the scene of the deaths, but
has nothing to do with the explosion that killed the people - in which
case any explanation is possible.

c) Stray sub munitions from a cruise missile caused the killings, which
would incriminate the US, However, this is unlikely.

d) The Iraqis had active military radars/missiles in a crowded
market place or nearby, and the resulting secondaries from its
destruction by the AGM-88 caused the damage displayed (roughly your words).

Only c) would clearly incriminate the US alone, but we may more or less
discard than one. On the other hand, d) would put the blame on both
sides pretty evenly, I would say.

Viewed on their own, a) and b) say nothing at all.

Correct?

Martin

Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 10:13:24 AM4/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 16:39:48 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:

> On the other hand, d) would put the blame on both

>sides pretty evenly, I would say.

The blame would be firmly on the Iraqis for setting an active radar and
associated ordinance in the middle of a built up residential district.

The aircraft engaging the radar could have done so from up to 40 miles
away, one doesn't have the luxury of wasting the 3-4 minutes it would take
flying into ever more hostile air defences to attempt to visual ID the
position of the emitter. If its painting aircraft and its in range of
defence suppression measures its going to be destroyed.


>
>Viewed on their own, a) and b) say nothing at all.
>

I would tend towards A myself.

Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 11:39:02 AM4/5/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:

> The blame would be firmly on the Iraqis for setting an active radar and
> associated ordinance in the middle of a built up residential district.
>
> The aircraft engaging the radar could have done so from up to 40 miles
> away, one doesn't have the luxury of wasting the 3-4 minutes it would take
> flying into ever more hostile air defences to attempt to visual ID the
> position of the emitter. If its painting aircraft and its in range of
> defence suppression measures its going to be destroyed.
>

It would appear to me that the 'luxury' and the distance were to
safeguard the pilot's life at the possible expense of civilian
casualties. However (and though there were anti-aircraft batteries in
the immediate proximity of houses during the Blitz in London), you are
correct in maintaining that the positioning of such facilities in
residential Baghdad would have constituted a breach of the rules of war.

But you appear to regard this entire scenario as less likely than Fisk
lying about the fragment or being deceived by the Iraqis, as you say
yourself:

>
> I would tend towards A myself.
>

In this case, as you have already accepted, nothing at all follows with
regard to the origin of the explosives. Of course, the Iraqis could have
planted these themselves. But the more usual assumption in a war is to
suppose that the enemy attacks one's civilians, if anyone.

This makes your other ideas enticing to anyone eager to exonerate the
allies, but purely hypothetical.

Martin

Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 12:37:33 PM4/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 18:39:02 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:

>


>It would appear to me that the 'luxury' and the distance were to
>safeguard the pilot's life at the possible expense of civilian
>casualties.

When the radar is capable of tracking and directing the destruction of
aircraft at that distance one cannot consider rendering it inoperable a
'luxury'.

>Of course, the Iraqis could have
>planted these themselves. But the more usual assumption in a war is to
>suppose that the enemy attacks one's civilians, if anyone.

Which is a particularly naive assumption seeing what they have already done
to their civilians over the past 30 odd years, in particular noting recent
reports of civilians being used as human shields.

>This makes your other ideas enticing to anyone eager to exonerate the
>allies, but purely hypothetical.


"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth."


The laws of physics would make it rather unlikely that the market blew it
self up.

Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 1:00:44 PM4/5/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 18:39:02 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
> wrote:

>>Of course, the Iraqis could have
>>planted these themselves. But the more usual assumption in a war is to
>>suppose that the enemy attacks one's civilians, if anyone.
>
>
> Which is a particularly naive assumption seeing what they have already done
> to their civilians over the past 30 odd years, in particular noting recent
> reports of civilians being used as human shields.
>
>

Are we going to jump to conclusions again?

>
> "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains,
> however improbable, must be the truth."

There are, however, several possible explanations for the explosion,
including other allied weapons. Yours is only one of them - and not the
most conventional. None can be proved at present.

>
>
> The laws of physics would make it rather unlikely that the market blew it
> self up.

It may have been full of self-loathing, but on balance, I think you may
be right, here ;-)

Martin

Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 1:28:49 PM4/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 20:00:44 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:


>> Which is a particularly naive assumption seeing what they have already done
>> to their civilians over the past 30 odd years, in particular noting recent
>> reports of civilians being used as human shields.
>>
>>
>
>Are we going to jump to conclusions again?
>

What conclusions would they be Martin ? One doesn't tend to extend the
benefit of the doubt to something which clearly doesn't deserve it.

>>
>> "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains,
>> however improbable, must be the truth."
>
>There are, however, several possible explanations for the explosion,
>including other allied weapons.

Tell that to Robert Fisk, he is rather convinced that something made by
Raytheon did it. Shame his pilgerism precluded checking some details before
committing rant to news wire.

Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 1:44:42 PM4/5/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 20:00:44 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Which is a particularly naive assumption seeing what they have already done
>>>to their civilians over the past 30 odd years, in particular noting recent
>>>reports of civilians being used as human shields.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Are we going to jump to conclusions again?
>>
>
>
> What conclusions would they be Martin ? One doesn't tend to extend the
> benefit of the doubt to something which clearly doesn't deserve it.

This is true. Therefore, I do not extend it to either side.


>
> Tell that to Robert Fisk, he is rather convinced that something made by
> Raytheon did it. Shame his pilgerism precluded checking some details before
> committing rant to news wire.
>

Bad journalism appears to be part of the collateral damage in this war.

Martin


Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 3:06:25 PM4/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 20:44:42 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:

>> What conclusions would they be Martin ? One doesn't tend to extend the


>> benefit of the doubt to something which clearly doesn't deserve it.
>
>This is true. Therefore, I do not extend it to either side.
>

Hypocrisy noted.

Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 3:21:35 PM4/5/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 20:44:42 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>What conclusions would they be Martin ? One doesn't tend to extend the
>>>benefit of the doubt to something which clearly doesn't deserve it.
>>
>>This is true. Therefore, I do not extend it to either side.
>>
>
>
> Hypocrisy noted.
>

So's the hot air. Still, thanks for a discussion that remained civil
until just now.

Martin

Sweet Snack

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 3:27:02 PM4/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 22:21:35 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:

>Greg Hennessy wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 20:44:42 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>What conclusions would they be Martin ? One doesn't tend to extend the
>>>>benefit of the doubt to something which clearly doesn't deserve it.
>>>
>>>This is true. Therefore, I do not extend it to either side.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hypocrisy noted.
>>
>
>So's the hot air. Still, thanks for a discussion that remained civil
>until just now.
>
>Martin

Don't take it personally Martin.
It's just another slippery jiggle of Greg's weapon-tech masturbatory aid.
--
Sugar Butty --- Munch Me

Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 4:10:58 PM4/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 22:21:35 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:


>>

>> Hypocrisy noted.
>>
>
>So's the hot air. Still, thanks for a discussion that remained civil
>until just now.

Considering your spiel in

Message-ID: <3E8EA33...@farrent.de>

posted @ 10:34 this morning before any reply you made to this thread today,
pardon me if I return your notion of civility with the spirit in which it
was given.

Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 4:37:34 PM4/5/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 22:21:35 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Hypocrisy noted.
>>>
>>
>>So's the hot air. Still, thanks for a discussion that remained civil
>>until just now.
>
>
> Considering your spiel in
>
> Message-ID: <3E8EA33...@farrent.de>
>
> posted @ 10:34 this morning before any reply you made to this thread today,
> pardon me if I return your notion of civility with the spirit in which it
> was given.

Understood, but I *had* already posted in this thread, a couple of hours
earlier. You later surprised me with some polite posts, to which I
responded in the same tone. I actually prefer civil discourse to the
type we had in our discussion about France. This one here was rather
interesting, for most of its duration. It was also informative (for me),
leading me to think that we could both turn over a new leaf in our
bilateral debates and not bore everyone else with blatant displays of
antipathy.

Now you have returned to your usual. I shan't fall for it again. I doubt
you are capable of remaining polite for very long, so I don't think I
will bother with you anymore.

Best,

Martin

Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 6, 2003, 5:27:02 AM4/6/03
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 23:37:34 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:

>> posted @ 10:34 this morning before any reply you made to this thread today,


>> pardon me if I return your notion of civility with the spirit in which it
>> was given.
>
>Understood, but I *had* already posted in this thread, a couple of hours
>earlier.

Thanks for confirming that, which is rather pertinent considering your
commentary in <3E8EA33...@farrent.de> was posted before my reply to
Message-ID: <3E8E7C2...@farrent.de> as referred to above.

One can only gauge levels of intended 'civility' by the candour of postings
made beforehand.

> You later surprised me with some polite posts, to which I
>responded in the same tone.

Display of wounded innocence noted.

> I actually prefer civil discourse to the
>type we had in our discussion about France. This one here was rather
>interesting, for most of its duration.

It happens occasionally.

>Now you have returned to your usual. I shan't fall for it again. I doubt
>you are capable of remaining polite for very long, so I don't think I
>will bother with you anymore.

As is your privilege.

Martin Farrent

unread,
Apr 6, 2003, 7:37:51 AM4/6/03
to
Greg Hennessy wrote:

> Display of wounded innocence noted.

A pipe will help soothe my tortured soul. Perhaps I can find one
pre-smoked by Tony Benn ;-) Once again, thanks for the info on missiles
and goodbye.

Martin

Greg Hennessy

unread,
Apr 6, 2003, 9:16:50 AM4/6/03
to
On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 13:37:51 +0200, Martin Farrent <mar...@farrent.de>
wrote:

>Greg Hennessy wrote:


>
>> Display of wounded innocence noted.
>
>A pipe will help soothe my tortured soul.

:-).

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages