Sorry dude. You posted a question, “Why do the evidentiary standards skyrocket when it may implicate the US?” which is why I asked about the warhead creating a small crater. Goes to the question of standards.
Got me there. So they are valid cage codes from Raytheon, TX. We dont know what munitions those are. We also cannot connect Coalition forces dropping them. Can we rule out the Iraqis from using US munitions? Manufacturer culpability aside, Iraqis do have a large stash of US made weapons.
DrDeth. One would tend to believe that in an interactive forum, such as this one, that direct comments on statements made by both a party interacting in the forum and a reporter(not interacting in the forum) were meant to be addressed to the participating parties, not the reporter. This is my perception of reality in interactive discussions. It apparently conflicts with your own in which you lob criticisms at a person who will most likely never hear them instead of debating with the people at hand who share the same views as the non-participant.
Still you also seem determined to call any hypothesis that would indicate US fault “lies” and insist that if a US weapon caused the incident that it was still the fault of the Iraqis for “moving the target” or that we simply can’t trust them because the civilian population of Bhagdad can’t tell a cruise missile from a bunker buster from a HARM when it blows up near them. Discrediting eyewitness reports because they thought it was a cruise missile instead of a HARM does NOT absolve Coalition forces of responsibility if it was their ordinance which killed civilians. You can’t throw out evidence because the not all the t’s are crossed and all the i’s are dotted. Likewise you can’t throw out evidence that coalition munitions caused this incident simply because there is a mis-statement/doubt as to which TYPE of munitions it was.
As for the rest, we’re not engaged in a “which was more evil, civilian casualties during the war or Saddam’s atrocities” type debate. Nor are we here to determine who has “the high ground” as far as credibility or morality. Nor are we interested in conspiracy theories(especially those based upon your evaluations of the morality/credibility of the involved parties) where the reporter “made up” the evidence or was fooled by Iraqi forces into picking up a planted shard of munitions that hit a legitimate target. We’re trying to determine if this incident was caused by coalition munitions. We need hard evidence for that. The kind of evidence many in this thread have provided with cites to analysis of the blast patterns and Coalition forces activities during the timeframe in question. From that point we may springboard into questions of impropriety in denying/diverting an investigation into the root cause of this incident or the nature of war being destructive to civilian lives.
Enjoy,
Steven
On Preview: I’d repeat my suggestion that you both pull your heads out before you suffocate.
Oh, and if you can quote anything I’ve said where I believe the ordinance which caused this blast, regardless of it’s origin/type, had a 1000 pound warhead then your question was legit.
Enjoy,
Steven
I was directly refuting the OP and his cite, which was repeated. We often refute cites here- and in every other “interactive forum” I post on. You make a cite, I point out it’s weaknesses. In some cases, I make making a refutation of points brought up by several posters, instead of a line-by-line refutation of one single ers post.
Next (and see, this is a line by line rebuttal), I never said that every hypothesis that assigns blame to the Coalition “lies”- just those that were- lies that is. The hypothesis that is was a 'cruise missle" is a lie, also that it was launched from a B1 or B2, or cluster bombs from a b-52, or lastly, “bunker busters”. All lies- well, some were more “wrong” than “lies”, I will grant. The hypothesis that it was a HARM missle, from an A6 fired at a legit target, and hit civilians- is a perfectly valid hypothesis. The only rebuttal I can make to that is “consider the source”, which isn’t a good “logical” arguement, I’ll admit- albeit it is valuable anyway.
The “eyewitness reports” could NOT know the source of the ordinance, so they are valueless, except as propaganda. So, yes I CAN discount them. All they can say is that “something went boom”- and of course, provide human interst details as to whom was killed, and injured- which does not speak to the source of the “boom”. You think someone read the “US Navy” logo on the missle as it came down? :rolleyes: You speak highly & blithely of “eyewitness reports”- cite? The only one I saw was someone saying they “heard a US Aircraft, then “boom”” (and the nevitable- “it was the Great satan America, of course!”)and they must have had REAL sharp “eyes” to “hear” the US Air Force logo on the side. (Admitly, the Coalition has just about the only planes around, still it could have been a Brit) So, even if they heard an A/C, and it was ours- there is no reason to expect that the “boom” came from our A/C, as of course Iraqi AA was also going on.
Then the fact remains that the sole & only source for there being a piece of ordinance, found at the site, from a US launched aircraft- is one who by his lies & innaccuracies has devalued HIMSELF. That is Fisk- quoted & cited by our OP. I no longer believe him. He is biased, and he was caught in a bald faced lie. You may beleive him if you like.
Of course- Fisk could lie his ass off, SH could be filling our ears with propaganda, and etc- and it COULD STILL have been a US HARM missle. Their lies do not make that impossible. But at some time we have to look at the evidence, weigh the sources, and get out Occams razor. If we do that now- I am afraid it looks like it was an Iraqi AA missle, and the rest is planted or false. I could be premature, of course.;j
You know, with all that stuff they send up and obviously not hitting anything, I am more surprised that there arent more reports of damage. Anti-aircraft artillery shells explode in the air but no ordinance is 100% reliable. Any one out of several hundred can not explode in midair but do explode upon impact. An anti-aircraft artillery shell would make a crater the size of a coffee table and after sending nearly a thousand tomahawks, peices with a readable cage code are probably plentiful.
a AGM-88 HARM has a 147 pound blast fragentation warhead (25000 steel fragments) and (get this) it self destructs if the RADAR it is homing on switches off. I think that even in a worse case scenario that a HARM fell into the market place, if the warhead exploded, we are talking serious human damage in a wide area. If the warhead did not explode, there would be a lot more peices to pick up that can identify its origin and user and it would still creat a crater bigger than a coffee table.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-88.html
On this plane issue, the guided bombs dropped by the B2 have a range of >25 miles, so i seriously doubt that someone on the ground could hear the plane. (if it was a B2, which it might not have been, even the old F-14 has been made into a bomber these days and carries stand-off glide bombs) Gone are the days when the bombers had to actually fly over the target to drop their bombs. (Well, I suppose some do, like the A-10, and certainly if one is dropping dumb bombs, then one has to fly over, but I don’t think we send B2s or F-117s out to drop 500lb iron bombs on random tanks.) Anyway, this is all beside the point really, but I just thought it worth a mention.
DrDeth you’re doing it again. The difference between “US aircraft” and “Coalition Aircraft” just doesn’t matter. I’m beginning to get angry with your evasions. Half of the “hypothesis” that you refute as “lies” were advanced by yourself as straw men. The whole “stealth” hijack was your doing. None of the sources cited, or other posters, in this thread said the ordinance was delivered by stealth aircraft. The eyewitnesses claimed to have heard and seen US aircraft. The key word in that claim is “aircraft” not “US”. It doesn’t matter if it was stealth, British, US, French, or even Swiss, it sure as hell wasn’t Iraqi. Regardless of your handwaving to discredit the “US” piece of the claim, the important parts still remain.
X~Slayer(ALE). Could you please tell me your qualifications in analysis of ordinance destructive patterns? 67 dead and ~300 wounded(some criticaly) is what I’ve heard. Sounds like “serious human damage” to me. I await your qualified analysis on the blast patterns of HARM missiles(in fact, better go ahead and analyze all coalition munitions and Iraqi ones as well just in case evidence comes out that this wasn’t a HARM, but maybe some other piece of coalition ordinance). In particular I await your analysis of the market area and the ground density in relation to the concussive force of the warhead if it detonated on impact or slightly before impact(both are possibilities). I’m certain that you can back up your claim that a HARM “would still creat a crater bigger than a coffee table” with this analysis.
[sub]really guys, are you getting ANY air?[/sub]
Enjoy,
Steven
Sigh. They claimed it was a 'cruise missle", and “launched from a US aircraft we heard”. Cruise missles are not & cannot be launched for A6’s and the like- they are launched from stealth bombers. Thus, THEIR claim it was a “cruise missle” leads me to point out- “If it was what you claim then you could not/did not hear the aircraft it was lauched from”. It was others who advanced the “cruise missle from US aricratf we heard” “eyewitness” report, I simply pointed out how wrong that was. No “straw man” here, just logical conclusions draw from wild-assed claims.
And sure, like I said- just about any plane in the air was Coalition. But sloppy inaccurate claims such as “it was a US aircraft” (which they could NOT have known) just go to show their bias & inaccuracy.
So agin I ask- where are these “eyewitnesses” you claim? I asked for a cite.
No. I’m done with allowing you to misrepresent my arguements and pretend you’ve proven something. Any claim anyone but you has advanced has so far been “sloppy” in your eyes. I’m not playing anymore.
Enjoy,
Steven
yeeeeshhh…
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6207342%5E25440,00.html
where did you get 300 seriously injured again?
An AGM-88A HARM has 25 thousand projectiles propelled by a 147 pound high explosive. Missile travels at mach 2. Ive seen a pound of plastique explosive lift a car up 7 feet and caused a crater way bigger than any table. Do the math dude. How many people in a crowd can 25,000 high speed steel projectiles kill? you tell me what serious human damage is really like then. These things are meant to destroy radar towers and penetrate 1/2 inch steel armor. Human flesh and bone wont be much of a stopper for these things.
Sure, be happy to do the math, as soon as you can provide some additional info about the situation. How many people are there? How far apart are they? How far off the ground does the missile explode? What kind of structures were in the marketplace that might have blocked/deflected fragments? I’m sure I’ll have other questions, but this is enough to start on.
Again your anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove anything. The “pound of plastique” was not what the warhead bore. Charges are be shaped for dispersion, concussion, penetration, or a dozen other effects. A HARM missile is designed to spread it’s payload horizontally(to take out radar transmitters/recievers and relatively fragile electronic equipment as well as personnel which may be operating it. They are not designed to cause much damage in a downward direction nor are they designed to take out structures/streets. Perhaps, on a direct hit, they CAN, but there is no evidence that they absolutely WILL, which seems to be your assertion. To be fair, Anti-Aircraft missiles are also designed to spread their payloads widely and
As for the casualty reports, that seems to vary with the source. I’ve seen reports of injuries as high as 300 and as low as 29(your cite). I saw the official state television report from that night which listed casualties at 60 dead, 140 wounded. This blurb seems to have yet more contradictory numbers. It is a symptom of having several markets hit in various areas and having dozens of reports. I’m not sure the exact casualty numbers, but it seems to have been pretty devestating. For the moment let’s assume your cite’s numbers are accurate. 55 dead 29 injured. How many people were present total? The market was described as “crowded” but obviously that is a subjective term. This article has a picture of part of the market. No idea if this was the whole thing(a handful of stalls along the side of a building) or if this picture is just a section. Still looks pretty torn up to me.
Enjoy,
Steven