Avoiding forcing everyone to slog through hundreds of lines of repeat . . .
Scott sez:

And no, I've thought of the possibility that this is an elaborate
hoax.

Scott, what is so elaborate about splicing x feet of wedding party footage
together with y feet of ululating widows/broken bodies of children/etc?
Both types of footage are readily available in that part of the world; you
can buy that footage wholesale. There are probably thousands of feet of
"happy wedding" and "crying women" video from that area- if not that
location- available to anyone interested in a quicjk set-up job. Nothing
had to be staged/faked/or even re-shot. The editing equipment is readily
available, and the propagandists are well trained (albeit unsophisticated).
The edits are aobviously "cut and paste" jobs.

The video is probably even "AUTHENTIC" in that sense. However, the "fakery"
involved is in the verbal claims ofhte person(s) supplying the video tot eh
media.

Are you saying that finding *one* unnamed person to lie about the
sourcing/circumstances of a piece of video constitutes an "elaborate hoax?"

No, Scott, in that part of the world, "faking" the "Wedding Party Massacre
Myth" is NOT an elaborate hoax at all.

More like SOP.

Steve Swartz


"Scott MacEachern" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 May 2004 11:16:31 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Yeah, no doubt they were all fabricated before they were shown to the
media
folks at that press brief yesterday, right?

Nope. You were ascribing the fact that news agencies weren't carrying
those slides to the fact that such outlets would prefer to run
anti-American material, seditious beasts that they are. I'm merely
poiting out that the Pentagon didn't provide 'em with the transcripts.
Seditious beasts.

Well, when they started shooting at US forces, they kind of crapped up
the
ol' "OK, everybody put your guns down and let's talk..." approach, now
didn't they?

Problem is, they say that they weren't shooting...

Your paraphrasing again leaves a lot out.

Not a whole lot. As I said, there's a bifg difference between an
insurgent hideout and a bunch of smugglers. And the insurgent
celebration (what is this, 50 Years of Jihad?) doesn't fit well with
the resr of it, either.

Same source on the 24th: "These are the passports of Sudanese citizens
that
were involved in the raid." Note the use of plural "passports".

Quite right. My mistake.


A medical examinationtable on the site. Syringes.
This is a 'pretty grand portable field medical set '? AKs and an
RPG.... in Iraq.

Kimmittt: "More weapons, battery packs that we typically associate with
those that are used for improvised explosive devices, a full-sized
medical
treatment bed for hasty operations in the field; top right, as we've
showed
before, the binoculars that had reticle patterns in them that one
typically
uses for adjusting artillery, adjusting mortar rounds."

Right. As I said, your 'pretty grand portable field medical set' is a
bed and some needles. And binoculars with reticles for adjusting
artillery? A few years ago, they were selling them for about $10 close
to the site of the Berlin Wall, in Berlin.... they'r probably all over
Iraq. I like the quick correction, though: "Oops, the insurgents
aren't using artillery, better talk about mortars..."

Well, if we have smugglers running RPG's and ammo, then they sound
like
a
viable target to me. Those RPG's are killing our guys, don'tcha know?

So are AKs. Are you going to declare open season on everyone in Iraq
who owns an AK, as well? A pistol... don't forget, there were some of
those found, too. Do you want to kill everyone in Iraq who owns a
pistol?

RPG does not equal pistol. You need to get back to the basics of
weaponeering--you obviously are having a bit of difficulty with basic
concepts.

I think that it's best to leave that exchange in there, since it shows
how you tend to take a statement and then run way beyond teh bounds of
meaning with it.

The jury is still out on that one, from what I have gathered.

Quite likely it is. But on nothing that Kimmitt says, eh? That is, a
priori, all true?

Your continuing "damn the US at all costs" sentiments come through loud
and
clear, as usual. I guess the possibility of bad guys manipulating the
media
(not that it requires a great deal of manipulation in most cases) is to
be
discounted outright, too, eh? Gosh, some of the terrorist networks even
have
websites these days! Not to metion their other stalwart support sytems,
like
Al Jazeerah..and you?

Oh, dearie me, I'm a terrorist supporter because I don't believe that
everything Central Command says is golden? I'd expected better of you,
Mr Brooks, you're not usually that crude. One of the very best things
about the USA is that the country as a whole tends to be able to get
beyond this kind of stupid, dishonest smearing, where everyone who
doesn't agree with you-you-you is a terrorist. Your country is in
general a lot better than this, Mr Brooks.... quite a shame that you,
and some of the other net.kops on these groups, can't live up to it.

And no, I've thought of the possibility that this is an elaborate
hoax. It seems unlikely to me, for the same reason that the TWA800 and
similar hoaxes that bother these groups seem unlikely: it's too big,
too elaborate. Videos in the desert, faked burials, grieving widows...
If it turns out to be true, the USA in Iraq is in a lot of trouble,
'cause they are waaaayyyy ahead of you. But it's not impossible, I
quite agree.

Scott