It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Media cover up? 300 US soldiers die?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Adendum, item 4 should read rescue personnel from the site.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Right lets see if we can assertain what really happened, I'm no expert in these matters so here goes.

1) How many personnel would be stationed at an munitions dump in normal circumstances.


None. You'll have a platoon nearby, and a few roaming guards inside to keep this sort of thing from happening, but not 300.


2) I dont know what type of munitions were there but lets say its the full range of weapons. It could be clearley seen that muntions were exploding well beyond the confines of the camp.

3) The exploding munitions may have been blown out to say 500-1000 metres. That would mean that personnel not that close to the centre of the conflagration could have been killed or injured by flying shrapnell.


Yeah...assuming everyone just stayed put for the hours it took the place to cook off. But that's not what happened.


4) There would be a good chance that more men would have been brought in initially to fight the fires and personnel on the site.

5) As the fire spread more munitions ignited possible causing more death and injury.


There is zero chance that firefighters were brought in. Personnel were evacuating the moment fire started cooking off ammo.

6

) The insurgents claimed 300 dead, how would they actually know. Isnt it plausible that the camp would have been under surveilance for some time prior to the attack and they would of been aware of say busy periods as opposed to quiter periods. Would they not have timed their attack to inflict the maximum casulties.

7) The dead and injured would have to be cared for, isnt it probable that civilians/Iraqi forces connected with the military would become aware of the numbers of dead and injured.


6-They wouldn't know.

7-No. Since we've already established that the "casuality list" is full of living soldiers.


8) If the number stated is say at least realistic how would the force commanders deal with the situation. Such an event is not just bad news for the troops but its the last thing the politicians would want to hear.


Once again, not realistic. The list is full of soldiers who are alive and well.


9) The insurgents (freedom Fighters) would want to hit a high value target to maximise propaganda and to generate more support for their cause. On the basis of this I think its highly probable that many men did loose there lives in this attack.


Good to see that even though this has been disproven, you have faith in the insurgency's ability to kill soldiers.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Thank you for taking the time to really look into this. I tried doing a search on some of the names to but that same list just coming up. Was really starting to get nervous because of that. Thanks again everyone for looking into this. Just to clarify, I was not posting this as a fact. I was posting it to find out what really happened.



Originally posted by Astygia
The casualty list is bunk. I did a buddyfinder on thirty of these guys, and not only are they alive, the casualty list on that libertyforum link doesn't even list their correct branch of service. For example, pretty much all of the people that the casualty list said were 82nd Airborne are actually Marines.

Further, notice the amount of 82nd AB casualties on that list. Not only would the 82nd not be guarding an ammo dump for an extended period of time, I'm fairly certain they're not even in the area.

Not saying that there were no casualties at the dump, but I am saying that the casualty list is BS.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Some of you guys are not thinking this through logically, the entire camp does not consist of 5,000 soldiers crammed in to a small warehouse full of shipping containers.

Some people simply do not or will not or choose not to look at facts, think in a logical manor and disregard truth, as long as it fits the agenda they push.


That's not necessarily true. SOME of us don't know what it's like to be in the service or stationed in a munitions dump or in a war zone. Some of us just want to find the truth. It has nothing to do with logic, more like ignorance (and I mean that as in uneducated). Sometimes people are just ignorant about some things and threads like this serve to be educational.

So don't fall from that horse or you'll hurt yourself.


Astygia - Thanks for the great work!



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Deltaboy, In times of conflict both sides use propaganda against each other, irrespective of how many soldiers that were killed or wounded the American press would not want to tell the public that the Insurgents as people like to call them, can inflict serious damage to the said occupying forces. They would play it all down, the last thing your going to do is demoralise your own forces by telling them the truth.


your own armed forces would know about it, they are freinds, collegues and know people in other units, you can't hide it from the millitary or their families!

I hear rubbish on this forum about wanting to uncover the 'truth'. When it is the fact that 'Insurgents' have killed 10x the amount of Iraqi civilians that US/UK troops have, it is swept under the carpet, because the truth is too much for some to handle. And their definition of truth is simply clutching at straws and attempting to undermine a particular group of nations or cultures.

I willing to bet that the propogandists on this site had a smile on his face after scowering extremist and biased sources who claimed that 300 evil zionist-pig soldiers were killed.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Peyres]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander
If you look at the picture, you will notice a pretty thick wall surrounding the ammo dump. Except in a couple of places it is still intact. The outer wall closest to the camera is entirely entact. Most of this blast seems to have been contained by the walls, and there for any fragments and direct blast at ground level was contained by said walls. The blasts therefore seems to be more up, then out.

And since no one tends to hangout in ammo dumps, it is very possible noone was killed or seriouslly hurt.

Not only that, but the thread title says "media cover up". Anyone think the media would (even if they could) cover this up. This is a big story, and factors into the election coverage as well.

As far as the info from the Arab site, yeah sure I beleive them.


Yep the Media has always been against the war, every news agency in the Anglo-American world apart from maybe Fox.


TG

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I thought the Iraq war finished in 1991???? And I thought Saddam Hussein had been captured and removed not so long ago.

Why are soldiers still in Iraq fighting when the war's over?

Very odd.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Was America or the UK invaded, no they were not, dont ask me to support our troops in an ilegal war that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, people that would still be alive now if it was not for our actions.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Hey guys i just wanted to point out something that i find kinda wierd and it could be connected..

You know this American Soldier that was "kiddnapped" was of Iraqi decent and was a translator for the US army and that they are searching door to door in Bagdad to find him.. well in one of the reports at the beginning of the thread mentioned that the suspect that leaked information has the same description. Could this really just be the suspect they are looking for but trying to convince the Americans.

Think about it, this could be the way for the US to search all of Bagdad for this guy and still cover up all the deaths in the explosions.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Deltaboy, Lets say the story is accurate, does that make any difference to you, I assume you are pro war in Iraq. What is it your concerned about the accuracy of the story or the numbers of lives lost. No one will get the truth of this story because its in the best interest for both sides to lie about such things. Have 3k soldiers lost there lives in Iraq, is that an accurate figure or have more lost their lives but the people in control of this war dont want to tell the folks back home just how bad things really are. Just like Vietnam, the people were not told the truth were they and its a pity that like minded people like you are not campaining to get the troops out rather than debating the colour of smoke and who did what.


Mr Mushroom,

You give out this statement basically saying it's pointless to debate this issue and we should instead be out "campaigning to get the troops out"; but the very next post is you debating this issue and talking about the how far the debris field would go, etc. Why do you feel it's okay for you to debate this issue and not others??



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
2) I dont know what type of munitions were there but lets say its the full range of weapons. It could be clearley seen that muntions were exploding well beyond the confines of the camp.

3) The exploding munitions may have been blown out to say 500-1000 metres. That would mean that personnel not that close to the centre of the conflagration could have been killed or injured by flying shrapnell.


So we're guessing on the type of weapons and we're guessing on the size of the debris field. Either way ... the people who work at a munitions dump would know what was in their stores. That would allow them to determine where to evacuate to ... one of the articles state they had bomb shelters on the base that they went to.


Originally posted by magicmushroom
4) There would be a good chance that more men would have been brought in initially to fight the fires and personnel on the site.


There is no chance they would call in fire fighting personnel to fight a fire in a munitions dump. We wouldn't call in firefighters here in the states in a similar situation ... in certain circumstances, such as these, it's better to evacuate the area around the incident and allow the fires to continue to burn until the danger is gone.


Originally posted by magicmushroom

6) The insurgents claimed 300 dead, how would they actually know. Isnt it plausible that the camp would have been under surveilance for some time prior to the attack and they would of been aware of say busy periods as opposed to quiter periods. Would they not have timed their attack to inflict the maximum casulties.


They would also have to time their attack to avoid detection. Wasn't this hit under the cover of night? How many people do they really have just hanging around that one are of the base at any given point? 300 seems awful high looking at the picture of the damaged area.


Originally posted by magicmushroom
8) If the number stated is say at least realistic how would the force commanders deal with the situation. Such an event is not just bad news for the troops but its the last thing the politicians would want to hear.

9) The insurgents (freedom Fighters) would want to hit a high value target to maximise propaganda and to generate more support for their cause. On the basis of this I think its highly probable that many men did loose there lives in this attack.


8 - Such an event is the last thing politicians would want to hear, true. But why would all the major media be involved in the coverup. What about the friends and families of 300 members. What about the removal of all those bodies? If 300 people were dead right around the area of destruction ... how come we can't get one picture of a dead soldier laying on the ground or be carried off?

9 - Your statement about the insurgents wanting to maximize the propaganda is jolly on the mark. Maximizing their propaganda -- that is exactly what they are doing. They struck the munitions base ... made a big "boom" that many people saw or heard ... and now they can "claim" about all the hundres of soldiers they kille and the thousands that were injured.

Even the websites claiming hundreds of casaulties say the base was struck at 2240 and explosions started around 2300 ... 20 mins later the explosions had just started. This gives ample time to move people to safety ... they're not just going to be standing around watching missiles burn, warming up smores and telling spooky ghost stories.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Iknow this may be slightly off thread but its something that is mentioned, the Media, do people realise that in the western world the media is literaly owned by a few people, people who are very cosy with our politicians. Those who think the media is free to report what they like are sadly deluded. Lets put it this way the people at the top say what can and cannot be reported on, the grunts at the bottom are told what they can do. Its abit like any army, the top brass know the plan but the front line grunts dont know anything and speculate.

And why do I have 2 minds on topics like this, one is reality, the reality that there are those who want to wage war to kill and control. Then there's my dream world where we all live together in peace, its the voices in my head, good and evil, all that kind of stuff.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
when it comes right down to it..both sides have made claims that appear to be 'over the top'. on one side....camp falcon only being occupied by 100 troops?! on the other side....300 dead in the attack. two apparently outlandish claims..who are we to believe??... a country that lied about the reasons to invade a country or a people that want to expell the 'foreign invaders'?

like i said in another thread on this subject.......no matter how you cut it..it was a large attack that destroyed alot of munitions and probably alot of equipment.......the americans are not even downplaying it..it is like it never happened...which leads me to think that it is bigger than the americans are saying....


check out my signature and think outside the box................



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
As already correctly said the ammo depots are in separate camp section, do you really believe US command is so stupid so they would place the ammo so that the explosion could be dangerous to troops? Do you really think they don;t know that mortar round could have disasterous consequences?
Every US base in Iraq has underground shelters against mortar attacks and such, those shelters are built to resist the explosions in similar situations. Also the troops in camps are very well adapted to mortar attack alerts, they had a lot of them in past and can be safely hidden in tens of seconds. So the only one possible casualties could be the guards in ammo depots, but if the ammo didn't explode at once they had plenty of time to seek safety too.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Iknow this may be slightly off thread but its something that is mentioned, the Media, do people realise that in the western world the media is literaly owned by a few people, people who are very cosy with our politicians. Those who think the media is free to report what they like are sadly deluded. Lets put it this way the people at the top say what can and cannot be reported on, the grunts at the bottom are told what they can do. Its abit like any army, the top brass know the plan but the front line grunts dont know anything and speculate.

And why do I have 2 minds on topics like this, one is reality, the reality that there are those who want to wage war to kill and control. Then there's my dream world where we all live together in peace, its the voices in my head, good and evil, all that kind of stuff.


do you even watch the news? Its been against the war ever since we set foot in there.

Just because wealthy people control much of the media, this doesn't mean THEY make the senior editing decisions, how can they control and vet everyone that works for these huge organisations that span the globe?. Lets face it most of the MSM is private, apart from state owned things like the BBC. Thus they are wealthy. They need to be wealthy to do their job.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
NIce work ATSers good to see how expertly this thread was debunked. Thank god there are sensible heads around here. Commendations.

PS. It seems despite the overwhelming evidence disputing this htread title, there are still some dopes, who are willing to believe, unbelievable.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Forgive me if this has been posted before but this isn't the first time the US is covering up a major incident.

Baghdad Cover up. Aka BOBCUP. 2003. Just before The Jessica Lynch story was pounded to the ground in the media there was a major battle going on for the airport.

The Medina division was in fixed urban positions and counter attacked the 3/7th Infantry. The US forces were overwhelmed, ran out of ammo and was completely wiped out. The US resorted to major airbombings to eliminate the enemy and this was aired on the media. But then it was squashed. The bombings and major explosions that is. Not the US death toll.

A certain Capt. Eric May can fill you in and there is even a book in britain released recently. It's not allowed to be published in North America I might add.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by soundaddicted]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Peyres do you really believe that, and the media play a game just like opposing politicians play, they slag each other off in public and then go to the pub to drink together just as lawerys do. You really believe that there is a free press, wellI never. And as far as the original post is concerend nothing has been proven on way or the other so who know's what the truth is.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Soundaddicted-

Why don't you post a link to this 'book' you speak about?



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by soundaddicted
The Medina division was in fixed urban positions and counter attacked the 3/7th Infantry. The US forces were overwhelmed, ran out of ammo and was completely wiped out. The US resorted to major airbombings to eliminate the enemy and this was aired on the media.


Complete and utter BS. WHat is this book ? come on tell us. No US forces were wiped out especially by the Medina division.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join