Not sure about that, but every civilian casualty at Pearl Harbor was caused by falling bullets.
(Source: Dirty little secretws of WW2, Dunnigan)
That’s a pretty freaking small hole for any air to surface munitions used by coalition. With the exception of cluster bombs, which are unlikely to be used in Bagdad, and would have resulted in a lot more casualties if they were used.
Libya had the same problem when they were attacked in the 80’s. What must come up must come down, on the other hand they were defeated by Chadians with machines guns mounted on Toyotas.
Actually, I would wager a fair chunk of change that they do know.
Each fighter most likely has an ordnance inventory checklist when it is being armed. Between our AWACS system, the jet’s own bombsight video, plus its radar event log we should be able to determine rather accurately if our plane released the bomb that hit the marketplace.
If Saddam really wants to prove it was one of ours, have some of the explosives residue gathered and analyzed by a third country. I doubt he’s using the same chemical compounds as we are.
Some other ordnance specialist like Tripler could probably verify this for all of us.
Well who would have thunk it. Story
I suppose this news is as big in the US as the possibility that it was a Iraqi bomb. Yes?
Or maybe people think that Fisk planted the evidence?
Well according to the experts here, Fisk either planted the evidence or just made the number up to make it seem it was a US missle. The truth, as we all know and should know, is that it was an Iraqi missle, manufactured by Raytheon of course.
Puts on tin-foil hat
Jeez, what kind of feckin’ loopy la-la ad hominem bullcrap is that?
Fisk may hold views that the US administration finds unpalatable, but he’s a highly ethical journalist, who has historically been ultra-critical of Saddam’s regime.
He did this once before, in Kosovo, when the US administration wouldn’t admit that it had accidentally hit a refugee convoy (IIRC). Eventually Fisk was vindicated.
You’ll pardon me if I wait for a bit more verification from a source without an obvious bias.
Erm jjimm, I fear you’ve been whooshed mate.
And reading Sauron’s post, I hope I have been too.
ummm… jjimm, I’m pretty sure you’re being whooshed. If that post was serious, it would be contrary to every other thing EasyPhil has posted in this thread.
Oh. I have been whooshed then. :o
BTW, I wasn’t getting vexed about EasyPhil, but the “experts” he was quoting.
:o
Gary Kumquat, my earlier post was a reference to Fisk’s preliminary column on the market bombing. I also am extremely leery of any “information” provided by an unnamed reader of a newspaper.
I will repeat my earlier point: It’s entirely possible the market bombing was caused by U.S. munitions, fired by U.S. or coaliton forces. Unlike others, I’m not going to proclaim that as fact until it’s been verified by independent sources.
What bias is that? Anti-Saddam? Because here’s what Fisk has to say on Saddam:
I don’t remember seeing him quote anyone. perhaps EasyPhil could give us a cite if indeed he was serious about experts saying such things.
OK not directly: he said “according to the experts here”. Anyway, I believe it was a whoosh, and I have indeed been whooshed, I admit it. :smack:
The only info given by the reader was to say what the no. represented. Fisk found the number and it can be checked at the site given.
So it comes down to if you believe Fisk or think that he would risk his career and make this up.
But stop and think about the assumptions you’re making, based on insinuations in that article. First, it’s not said that the number belongs to a cruise missile (although the article definitively states the bombing was the result of a cruise missile). The article states the number is traced back to Raytheon, which makes cruise missiles. Raytheon also makes a hell of a lot more stuff other than cruise missiles.
Secondly, the first column written by Fisk about this incident mentions a plane roaring over the marketplace; in fact, he that “everyone he spoke to” heard the plane. He also mentions the American pilot flying through the blinding sandstorm. Unless the operational patterns of B-52s have changed recently, they prefer not to fly close to the ground; their bombing is done from thousands of feet high.
Thirdly (and I will freely admit I’m out of my depth here), what sort of a blast does a cruise missile make? I thought it caused more damage than was done in the marketplace. I could be wrong, though.
Either way, it’s shoddy reporting done by The Guardian, and it smacks of an agenda.
So, either Fisk is talking out his ass about some of this stuff (gee, ya think?) or a B-52 performed a low-level strafing run in order to deliver a cruise missile into the marketplace, which is patently absurd.
Finally (and I hesitate to bring this up), but does anyone recall the “baby milk factory” that was bombed in the first Gulf War? Not saying that something similar has occurred here, but I would think it’s in the realm of possibility that Iraqi forces planted a casing from a bombing in another portion of Baghdad at the marketplace. We know they’ve done something similar before.
I’m not saying the U.S. didn’t cause the destruction and loss of life at the marketplace; it could very well have happened that way. I’m just saying The Guardian is linking several things here without examining them, and that’s terrible journalism.
Lot’s of good points Sauron 
Sauron, that was a very thoughtful, well-written, and detailed post.
I shall suspend judgement on the story until the truth comes out in the next few weeks (hope it does).
Thanks, folks. Somebody a lot smarter than me once said “Truth is the first casualty of war.” I’m just trying to take everything from the front lines (from both sides) with a grain of salt.