RE: [WAR] amazing new photo history

From: Spike (
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 22:58:07 MDT

  • Next message: Spike: "RE: Science News: Skipping Meals may have CR-like benefits"

    Damien replies:

    > It was Damien who chose to use the phrase
    >"oily omelette" in his harsh response to Spike...
    Oy vey! For the record, I did not consider Damien's response harsh or
    critical. I have been away for a few days, so do forgive if this topic
    is stale.
    I would offer the following scenario to explain the lack of battle
    footage shown in the USian news.
    The newspeople were sent in with the coalition troops knowing that a
    Pulitzer Prize, untold riches and 72 virgins awaited the first of them
    to come home with any real footage of actual battle. Their universal
    failure was due to the fact that the Coalition newspeople and the
    Coalition troops were not present at the major battles of this conflict.
    This is not to say there were not battles, but rather that most of the
    shooting was between the Iraqis and the non-Iraqi Muslim zealots.
    The zealots, you will recall, came from countries all over the middle
    east to help defend Iraq from the invading coalition. The day before
    the battle of the Airport, you may recall seeing an interview with an
    American general. In the distance a fierce firefight broke out. He
    commented that he did not know who was engaging whom, since all the
    coalition forces were accounted for and quiet at that moment.
    My notion is that a few days before, a group of zealots led the Iraqis
    into battle, only to have the Iraqis shoot them in the back. The
    zealots, wanting to avoid a repeat of this debacle, decided to go thru
    the Iraqi ranks and shoot any soldiers that might present a threat from
    the rear. The Iraqis, understandably incensed at this action, decided
    to shoot back. There was no footage because neither the Iraqis nor the
    zealots had embedded reporters. I expect the full story to leak out in
    the coming years.
    So, to more accurately state my earlier comment that there was never any
    war, I would now say the war mostly did not involve the coalition. In
    general, the Iraqis had no issue with the Coalition troops, and the
    Coalition troops had no issue with the Iraqi troops. The American
    soldiers mostly just wanted to get home to their children and husbands.
    This would also explain the presence of cluster bombs, when the
    coalition generals claim they didn't fire them. Cluster bombs were set
    in place by the zealots, who were hoping to punish the Iraqis for not
    fighting, and to cause antipathy towards the coalition, perhaps
    encouraging the Iraqis to fight. This scenario explains a lot of
    puzzling apparent contradictions, does it not?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 23:06:14 MDT