Which Iraq War stories do you think are planted or false? Report them here.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
I think showing that farmer that shot down an apache may backfire. That is intimidating aircraft to look at, even when shot down.

It doesn't look shot down.

[The Mad Monk]

The military pictures thread show some photos of burning oil fields, and there have been reports of limited vision due to them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The difference on the oilfields, just like the oil trenches around Baghdad, is that in GW I, the Iraqis destroyed everything they could, just to be bastards. This time, since it's their own, they're destroying very few, with a military objective of hindering enemy visibility.

I also wonder about the recent story on CNN about 3 ID crossing the Euphrates near an Najaf. That doesn't fit US doctrine - having them east of V Corps units, when other parts of XVIII Airborne Corps are west. It also puts them on the road to al Hillah, which is the eastern anchor for IRG Medina's position. Lining up two divisions for a frontal assault is also dodgy, so something else is likely going on, either with V Corps, or with the location of 3 ID.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Seeker

The farmer and the Apache was pathetic.

Hey come on - I loved that guy

[Uncle Sparky]

Two new rumours to consider -

1) According to CBC radio, a source inside Basra claims that the popular uprising is being led by a pro Iranian faction.

2) Reported on CNN - a division of Halliburton, an energy resource supply company formally controlled by US VP Chaney, has been contracted by the coalition to "assist with" the captured oilfields.

My thoughts -

1) Iran will end up liberating pro Iranian border cities; they've been itching to do this for 20 years. They will wait, though, until "the Great Satan" and Saddam have inflicted the maximum amount of damage on each other.

2) Its not about oil !!! Can't the world get this through their collective socialist heads ? The reason that the first targets in Iraq to be secured were the oilfields were because of environmental concerns & to insure they were available for the benefit of the Iraqi people. We all know Rumsfeld & co are dedicated environmentalists. (note - this is the most sarcastic I've been in this forum in years ) And since it was reported on CNN, it must be true.

[Alexander's Horse]

One would have to say the reports about surrenders before the fighting started are highly suspect. Does anyone really believe the surrendering guys were "sent back"? i.e. to certain death if discovered. Sounds like a psych op.

I'm really worried about the lack of prisoners. It means there are still large forces in the field. If the Iraqi units were "melting away" one would expect to see deserters streaming back to their home towns. This isn't happening AFAIK. The coalition only has a few thousand prisoners. By this stage of gulf war 1 the prisoners numbered in the tens of thousands and tens of thousands more were clogging the roads in the rout. So few guys surrendering and few running away? Where are all the troops? Iraq had about half million troops of varying quality plus an equally large number of irregulars of various types if media reports are correct. Probably up to a million fighters if you count everyone whose been issued with a weapon.

One thing people don't realise is Iraq is not just one big desert. The Tigris and the Euphrates is a huge river delta which bulges out around central Iraq/ the Baghdad area. The marshes and lakes could hide a lot of troops and be very hard to clear out, even after the main cities are taken.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
So few guys surrendering and few running away? Where are all the troops? Iraq had about half million troops of varying quality plus an equally large number of irregulars of various types if media reports are correct. Probably up to a million fighters if you count everyone whose been issued with a weapon.

Same with the refugees. It was predicted that there would be a mass exodus out of Iraq, but so far it's just been a trickle.

[Ned]

I think the most obviously false story is that the protesters are against the war because they sincerely believe that the Bush only wants to contol the Iraqi oil in order to plunder it and make Bush's chums in BIG OIL (JR Ewing and the Cartel) rich. Even Che says that the real reason they are against the war is fear of American Imperialism.

[Uncle Sparky]

Ned - Economic imperialism is still imperialism.

New story - true or false -

The US Navy is using dolphins to clear land mines in the harbour at Umm Qassar.

(Does PETA know? Will they come up with another clever holocaust analogy?)

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
Nagasaki was about 20 kilotons or so.

We are told the US dropped 1500 different bombs and missile in the city: given that most are about or under 1 ton, that puts it at 1.5 kilotons. How much did a B-17 carry, or a Lancaster? If I remember, its about 3 tons of bombs for the B-17. If you have, lets say, 800 in one raid against one city one night, that comes out to a max of 2.4 kilotons. As far as I can remeber, we did have nights in which that many bombers struck one city.

So yeah, this is hardly the biggest bombing "ever".

Edit: I think that the B-17 could carry 6000 Kg's of bombs, which means 6tons, not 3. so move that kiloton number to 4.8.

If you measure force applied to targets rather than mearly unleashed in the very general vicinity of the targets then this bombardment easily tops any WW2 conventional strike. Consider the inverse square relationship of the blast energy to distance from the target.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Ned - Economic imperialism is still imperialism.

New story - true or false -

The US Navy is using dolphins to clear land mines in the harbour at Umm Qassar.

(Does PETA know? Will they come up with another clever holocaust analogy?)

You mean like this?
They are being used, and PETA has announced its displeasure:

Save The Embedded Dolphins!


Searching for Scuds?

MARCH 25--When The Smoking Gun learned today (via a Drudge Report link) that coalition forces in Iraq had embedded sea life in the drive to oust Saddam Hussein, we wondered how long it would take People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to leap to the defense of mine-sweeping dolphins and sea lions.

As it turned out, PETA took about three minutes to provide us with a statement attacking the military practice of using marine mammals to look for and mark mines that now dot shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf. Along with troops and military equipment, humanitarian aid is also passing through that channel.

On a sea sortie?

Here's what PETA has to say:

"Our troops deserve the best defense possible, but PETA opposes the use of dolphins, sea lions, or any other marine mammals. The project is cruel and cannot provide a reliable defense or surveillance for our troops. The Navy claims they are not putting these animals in harm's way, but they've removed these animals from their homes, relocated them to foreign waters in the Persian Gulf, and are forcing them to not only inspect the waters, but to actually swim up to potential terrorists under the water, clamp a cuff on their leg, and deploy a floating marker. How can anyone say these animals are not being put in harm's way?

The bottom line is that dolphins cannot provide a reliable defense. These are living beings with minds of their own, and though they are incredibly intelligent, they have no idea that lives will be lost if they fail to perform tasks properly. Yet, the military wants to rely on the actions of these animals in order to protect our troops. Our troops deserve the best defense possible and this isn't it. The animals and our troops deserve better."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dolphiniraq1.html

Remarkably restrained, for PETA.

[ravagon]

One thing I found rather amusing was a suggestion, put forward by Rumsfeld IIRC quite early in the conflict, that the discrepancy between Iraqi statements and reality was indicative of confusion in Iraq.
Obviously it was more likely due to the Iraqis just plain lying through their teeth - though Iraq could hardly defend itself by admitting such.

[Alexander's Horse]

We've had some fabulous lies exposed in the last 24 hours:

. we're told about 1000 Saddam fanatics are holding Basra when suddenly 150 armoured vehicles try and break out. Presumably these armoured units were from the 51st division which we were told had surrendered on day 2.

. We're told there's been a civilian uprising in Basra which is being suppressed by Saddam loyalists (the mythical fanatics). Then we find out there's no independent verification and allied military sources start backing away from the story.

and so on, and so on........

[DanS]

I'm curious as to why they broke out. Sounds like a horribly bad idea to me.

[Sava]

I don't really trust anything that I hear from American news sources. At this point, who knows what's true and what's not. I'll listen to National Public Radio and BBCNews for my news. And even then, I take it with a grain of salt.