posted
I would like to hear just one valid reason to not record a rocket or mortar attack on an American FOB as long as there are no injured Americans. They are corrupt and incompetent in my not so humble opinion.
-------------------- President Bush said what? And you believed him?? Heeeere's your sign Posts: 85 | From: Park Forest, IL | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hardhead: I would like to hear just one valid reason to not record a rocket or mortar attack on an American FOB as long as there are no injured Americans. They are corrupt and incompetent in my not so humble opinion.
Now you're adding a condition that wasn't in the original quote: "on an American FOB." I agree that a literal reading of the quote would lead someone to believe that ineffective attacks on FOBs would not be in a database; however, the quotee was not meaning that. He was thinking of the indirect fire attacks that occur against non-coalition targets.
-------------------- "Who needs the Bible? I've got this magic 8-ball." Posts: 354 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Il-Mari: The US government isn't exactly being straight-forward about what goes on in Iraq either:
quote:The study group determined that on one day in July, American officials in Iraq reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence, but the study group’s review found that 1,100 violent acts actually occurred that day. “The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases,” the report said.
For example, the report said that a killing of an Iraqi might not be counted by American officials as an attack, and that sectarian violence was not included in American databases if the source of the attack could not be determined. In addition, it said, “a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count.”
The group did not charge that the widespread underreporting of attacks was politically motivated. Still, it raised questions about whether the underreporting was intended to conform with Bush administration policies. “Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals,” the report stated.
posted
I conceed that "on an American FOB" was not part of the original quote, I added it to emphasize the apparent illogical basis of the reporting. Having re-read the quote in the Times (a secondary source as it is quoting the Baker/Hamilton report) I'm afraid I can't agree that the report was speaking of indirect fire attacks against non-coalition targets. That issue was previously addressed. The context is that the ied/mortar/rocket attacks are against American forces. Without reading the original report, I'm just guessing. However I would still like one valid reason for not including such incidents in the reports.
-------------------- President Bush said what? And you believed him?? Heeeere's your sign Posts: 85 | From: Park Forest, IL | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Il-Mari: The US government isn't exactly being straight-forward about what goes on in Iraq either:
quote:The study group determined that on one day in July, American officials in Iraq reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence, but the study group’s review found that 1,100 violent acts actually occurred that day. “The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases,” the report said.
For example, the report said that a killing of an Iraqi might not be counted by American officials as an attack, and that sectarian violence was not included in American databases if the source of the attack could not be determined. In addition, it said, “a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count.”
The group did not charge that the widespread underreporting of attacks was politically motivated. Still, it raised questions about whether the underreporting was intended to conform with Bush administration policies. “Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals,” the report stated.
So, does this qualify as Bush Administration deception, or merely an epidemic level of incompetence?
- Il-Mari
Neither. There are valid reasons for the manner in which the databases are compiled.
So what are these 'valid' reasons why the number of attacks is grossly under-reported? The ISG doesn't recognize any.
- Il-Mari
About as much as I can say is that the databases are not intended to be comprehensive. The ISG had no expertise in MI on board and was not qualified to make judgments, so they didn't.
-------------------- "Who needs the Bible? I've got this magic 8-ball." Posts: 354 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, the attack on "Jamil Hussein" sheds light on a fascinating bit of right-wing epistemological philosophy. As far as these people are concerned, individual anecdotes are the way to establish the truth of a situation.
The existence or nonexistence of Jamil Hussein is only significant insofar as it relates to the existence or nonexistence of the phenomena that he reported. If Flopping Aces can discredit Jamil Hussein (who reported that Baghdad is being torn apart by civil war), it must somehow mean that Baghdad isn't being torn apart by civil war. Similarly, if the US military shows an embedded reporter how awesome things are in the one small corner of Iraq that they can visit, it means things in Iraq are really pretty awesome. Similarly, recall the widespread insistence that the fact that lots of places in Iraq were peaceful meant that the same was true for the country as a whole. The damn media just isn't reporting all of Iraq's anecdotal "good news."
The other side of this coin is a deep distrust of statistical methods, such as the Lancet war deaths study. These are, I would bet, many of the same people who don't trust statistical sampling in the US Census.
This is probably related to the overpersonalization of the "war on terror" and the Dr. Evil Theory of Foreign Policy: when bad things happen, it's because that Bad Guy Osama/Saddam/Zarqawi/Sadr/Ahmedinejad/et al did that bad thing! Funny how the bad things only seem to get worse after we take the Bad Guy out. Likewise, if we're making war on Iraq, we're just making war on Saddam Hussein. We aren't making war on the Iraqi people! I can't understand why the Iraqi people don't like us very much...
This epistemological atomism goes hand-in-hand with a certain right-wing emphasis on "personal responsibility, where "personal responsibility" means the government ignores all the sociological factors that produce predictable problems in society that government intervention could improve.
Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: "the real 'civil war'" [...] Warning: requires cerebral activation. Those with inactive cerebrums (Media professionals, Democratic members of Congress) should avoid. [...] Much of the "news" sources out of Iraq appear to actually be enemy propaganda. [...] Basically, it appears that the main sources for most of the AP reporting coming out of Iraq are at best vague, uncited, and unverified, and at worst known to be from illegitimate sources - people who "don't exist" or even have warrants out for their arrests.
So, does this qualify as media bias, or merely an epidemic level of media incompetence?
We, the stupid, were under the impression that there was a huge problem with the American ocupation of Iraq.
First of Two, the enlightened, has showed us that there is no problem with the ocupation. Things are pink and blue with golden details in Iraq. According to First of Two, there is a problem with the image of the ocupation.
So, the Only Superpower isn't loosing a hardware war against a Third World insurgence. It is loosing an information war against a Third World insurgence.
I think this became sufficiently clear.
But, since we, the stupid, cannot rise our yellow-dog silly minds to something remotely classifiable as "cerebral activation", I will, very stupidly, ask just one question.
Is loosing an information war in some way better than loosing a "real" war? Why? And if the United States, which is a superpower in mediatic resourced, cannot be trusted to win information wars, can it be trusted to win material wars?
In other words, First, are you telling us that the US is a crumbling superpower anyway? Now tell us, which number is your CPUSA card?
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whilst managing to outmaneuver both Kerry and Gore, thus aptly demonstrating the truth of any perceived implication regarding collective ability.
Yes, you are certainly right about this. Beating democrats in two consecutive elections proves that Bush isn´t the idiot he likes to feign for his own purposes.
But then tell me, haven´t the Democratic representatives and Senators beaten Republican adversaries to get elected? And wouldn´t that prove something about their perceveid lack of cerebral functioning?
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fusca 1976: . . . Beating democrats in two consecutive elections proves that Bush isn´t the idiot he likes to feign for his own purposes. . . .
I listened to Bush's press conference this morning. He really is an idiot.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fusca 1976: Beating democrats in two consecutive elections proves that Bush isn´t the idiot he likes to feign for his own purposes.
It proves that the people who manage his campaigns are not idiots. Does anybody here sincerely believe that modern presidential candidates manage their own campaigns?
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:CAMP PENDLETON, Calif (Reuters) - The U.S. military was expected to announce charges on Thursday against a group of Marines in the killing of 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq, following an investigation into what Iraqi witnesses say was a massacre.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pogue Ma-humbug: Fake news, indeed.
quote:CAMP PENDLETON, Calif (Reuters) - The U.S. military was expected to announce charges on Thursday against a group of Marines in the killing of 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq, following an investigation into what Iraqi witnesses say was a massacre.
Pogue
Obviously, the US military is controled by the global Islamic-Liberal conspiracy.
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
