Army Stage managed Fall Hussein Statue

Craven de Kere wrote:

dlowan wrote:
That site will not load for me, Bill.

Perhaps you can explain or copy?

If you use IE it should work, it won't display in Opera.

The entire page's source is encrypted so the size is very large.

It doesn't say anything to negate the title of this thread BTW, just portrays the psychological operations and stage management in a better light.

Yeah - dinna work - I tried IE, cos I really wanted to weigh up Bill's evidence.

I watched that thing happen for a bit, and it had propaganda/"psy-ops" written all over it, to me. But - I AM biased...

0 Replies

Bill! Thank you for typing it out! That was really kind!

0 Replies

Quote:

Bull. Bill, quit making stuff up, this type of this is tantamount to a declaration that you do not really know what happened but know what you really would like to think happened.

Actually, this fits you, not me, Craven. You are completely wrong. Read this excerpt.

Quote:

As we approached the street leading into the Al-Firdos Square, we could tell that there was a very large crowd of civilians starting to form up. It looked like the infantry unit up there could use some support, so we moved our [tactical PSYOP team] TPT vehicle forward and started to run around seeing what they needed us to do to facilitate their mission. There was a large media circus at this location (I guess the Palestine Hotel was a media center at the time), almost as many reporters as there were Iraqis, as the hotel was right adjacent to the Al-Firdos Square.

The crowd and the "media circus" were already there when PSYOP showed up. That's what I was watching on live TV (your suggestion that I lied is unfounded and offensive, btw). I can't be the only person who on A2K who watched this live... anybody?

This is before they identified the statue as a target of opportunity, but the crowd of Iraqis had identified it a good while before that... I know, I saw. I watched them put the rope around it long after they started trying to knock it down with sledgehammers and long before the military got involved with their heavy equipment and chain. What makes you think I would lie?
The Iraqis started doing this and the people I watched it with shared my opinion that the soldiers should have let them continue longer to see if they couldn't finish it themselves. PSYOP got involved after the Iraqis did. The book says nothing to the contrary.

0 Replies

Thanks Craven. Looks like we're gonna hafta be talking about "craven jobs" from now on - I hand it to you ;-)

0 Replies

Your welcome bunny. I just asked myself; what would nimh do?

Now read it very carefully, compare it to the original article posted here and then tell Craven he's full of it. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The crowd and the "media circus" were already there when PSYOP showed up.

Yes, I know this.

Quote:

This is before they identified the statue as a target of opportunity, but the crowd of Iraqis had identified it a good while before that... I know, I saw.

Yes, I know this. But again that says nothing contrary to the claim that the taking down of the statue was a well managed PSYOPs operation.

Quote:

The Iraqis started doing this and the people I watched it with shared my opinion that the soldiers should have let them continue longer to see if they couldn't finish it themselves.

Yes, I know this, there are a bunch of claims about the sledgehammers being provided by the military that I find dubious.

Quote:

PSYOP got involved after the Iraqis did.

False Bill. The US military took down the statue after the Iraqis tried but that was not the point at which PSYOPs became involved.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Thanks Craven. Looks like we're gonna hafta be talking about "craven jobs" from now on - I hand it to you ;-)

Nah, that one was a quicky, I already knew where everything was as it had been posted here before.

I wrote then removed all the parts that I heard from PSYOPs personnel though, as I can't substantiate any of it.

0 Replies

It is a move I too would have made in the same situation. It played good to the yokels. Of course, I as Commander in Chief wouldn't have had anybody there in the first place.

0 Replies

Craven, please define what that title means to you.
To me it implies that taking down the statue was PSYOPs idea, but you've now agreed that the Iraqis were working on it before they showed up.
So please; define what that title means to you.

0 Replies

Edgar's BS Story wrote:

The Army report said no such thing.

Edgar's BS Story wrote:

to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

This is a total BS fabrication. How can any of you deny it.
This is what it really says:

The real story wrote:

The Marine Corps colonel in the area saw the Saddam statue as a target of opportunity and decided that the statue must come down. Since we were right there, we chimed in with some loudspeaker support to let the Iraqis know what it was we were attempting to do.

Could this be a more obvious chop job? How do you deny it?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Craven, please define what that title means to you.

Means PSYOPs did their job, which to me is a good thing.

Quote:

To me it implies that taking down the statue was PSYOPs idea

It was.

Quote:

but you've now agreed that the Iraqis were working on it before they showed up.

No I haven't because this is unclear to me. They were working on it before the US military came in and pulled it down but I do not know where that fits in the timeline and whether that was before the US military broadcast the idea.

From what I have read it seems to go somewhat like this. I've read every single account of this event that I am aware of (and I made an effort to be aware of this as I am interested in PSYOPs) but I do not know the timeline with certainty, this is an outline of how it looks based on what I have read.

1) Crowd was in the vicinity

2) US military identifies the statue as a "target"

3) US military broadcasts this over loudspeakers to the Iraqis

4) Iraqis in vicinity like the idea and start to work

5) Iraqis use a rope and sledge hammers to try to bring it down.

6) US military decides to do it when it becomes apparent that the Iraqis will not be capable of pulling it down

7) US Marine goes up and places the US flag over Saddam's head. I believe this is also the time when the rope is replaced by a chain.

8) PSYOPs get the flag thing fixed, the Iraqi flag produced that was free of Saddam's markings is said to have been produced by an Ieaqi.

9) PSYOPs decide to load the vehicle with Iraqi children. Loudspeakers are used to clear the shadow of the statue.

10) US pulls down the statue and drags it through the street.

11) The head comes off and is dragged with Iraqis beating it and spitting on it for the cameras.

Quote:

So please; define what that title means to you.

A good example of PSYOPs, and it shouldn't diminish the expression of Iraqi feelings.

PSYOPs identified a good symbolic target and captured a good moment, this is their job and they did it well.

And if they hadn't they'd have been remiss as this was a definitive moment in the war.

PSYOPs brought this stage but that doesn't mean the Iraqi exprssion was "staged" or faked so much as merely elicited through timely PSYOPs.

I like PSYOPs and think it's an important part of modern warfare and integral to less bloody wars.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL's BS post wrote:

Edgar's BS Story wrote:
The Army report said no such thing.

False, it says EXACTLY that. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Edgar's BS Story wrote:
to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

This is a total BS fabrication. How can any of you deny it.
This is what it really says:

The real story wrote:
The Marine Corps colonel in the area saw the Saddam statue as a target of opportunity and decided that the statue must come down. Since we were right there, we chimed in with some loudspeaker support to let the Iraqis know what it was we were attempting to do.

Could this be a more obvious chop job? How do you deny it?

Deny what? What you posted does not say a single thing that contradicts what Edgar said in any way.

0 Replies

Craven, you are being deliberately obtuse and arguing for the sake of argument. I'm starting to think you were replaced by a Hobbit-pod.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Deny what? What you posted does not say a single thing that contradicts what Edgar said in any way.

My dispute isn't with Edgar, Craven. It's with the liar he quoted.

David Zucchino the liar wrote:

to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

This is BS. At no point does the real story say that PSYOP "encouraged Iraqi civilians to assist". If you think it does: Prove it.

It actually says:

Quote:

to let the Iraqis know what it was we were attempting to do.

These are not parallel statements and you know itor is your obtuseness genuine? Do you enjoy arguing so much that you will deliberately ignore obvious inconsistencies?

The author of that trash could have accurately quoted the original piece and chose instead to twist it into what he wants to believe (and you obviously do to). Don't tell me I'm wrong; prove it. I've provided you with obvious proof.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Craven, you are being deliberately obtuse and arguing for the sake of argument. I'm starting to think you were replaced by a Hobbit-pod.

When one is frustrated and has weak arguments one tends to use lame ad hominems like these. You even manage to work in an ad hominem for a party absent to this discussion.

I will take the libery of skiping them and proceeding to said weak arguments. I will also let you know that this may well be my last post to you on this subject (I reserve the right to change my mind if you can muster anything substantative) as I have little interest in this level of debate. Those might seem like mighty and forceful arguments to you, but I am of the opinion that this is based entirely on the conviction you emote rather than a body of evidence you bring to the table.

I am not "arguing for the sake of argument". On the contrary, I'm considering abandoning this argument. If you'd rather speculate about reasons I do not share your opinion instead of delienating and substantiating it I am superfluous to the exchange except to serve as the object of your frustrations. Perhaps this can be done in effigy while I find other more interesting discussions?

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Deny what? What you posted does not say a single thing that contradicts what Edgar said in any way.
My dispute isn't with Edgar, Craven. It's with the liar he quoted.

Whatever Bill, you've done nothing to illustrate a lie in the matters we are discussing but simply ratchet up your conviction and release ejaculations expressing frustration that we do not agree with you. They remain as unconvincing as they are a nuisance to evidentiary exchange. If you wish to assert that someone is a liar and that they have lied you would do well to do so through substantiation instead of simply repeating that you can't believe that others do not agree with you.

Below, you will try to place the burden of proof on the people with whom you are frustrated for not agreeing with you, and while I will entertain it to some degree I recommend that you simply substantiate your claims with what evidence is available to you. I don't mind if you include ejaculatory rhetoric as long as you include some cake with that icing.

You've not done so. You have cited texts that I have read before this discussion and that I have re-read throughout this discussion and I have not seen anything inconsistent with the outline I have formed about this event.

If you can find the time between the exclamations of just how obtuse I am for not agreeing with you and just how much of a liar somebody is and just how unbelievable it is that we do not agree it would be a substantial improvement.

I laid out an outline of what I believe happened. If you have evidence to the contrary bring it and we can examine it.

I have brought you some of the sources, insights and evidences I relied on. If you have refutation of any of it bring it and we can examine it.

Simply put Bill, I don't mind playing rhetoric with you on the side but the above is a basis for meaningful discussion and without this the level of interest this discussion holds is merely how interested I am in hearing expressions of your conviction on the subject.

Quote:

David Zucchino the liar wrote:
to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

This is BS. At no point does the real story say that PSYOP "encouraged Iraqi civilians to assist". If you think it does: Prove it.
It actually says:
Quote:
to let the Iraqis know what it was we were attempting to do.

Prove what? The quibbling over the logomachy is irrelevant either wording is acceptable to me and I maintain that neither wording contradicts the outline of the event that I will encapsulate again below.

You keep arguing over and over that your quote be accepted and you neglect to notice that I keep telling you that I am perfectly willing to accept that quote and that in addition I do not think it supports your position or debunks the outline I posted.

Again, a summary for you to address during any respite from the ejaculations.

1) The US military had the idea of taking down the statue and informed the Iraqis of this idea.

2) Iraqis made an attempt to do so before the US military used their equipment to do so.

At dispute is whether the US military conceived the idea to topple the statue and broadcast the idea to the Iraqis prior to the Iraqi attempt to topple the statue.

The facts I have found (feel free to bring evidence to the contrary) are:

1) The US military did have the idea to "target" the statue.

2) The US military did broacast this intention to the Iraqis

3) The Iraqis did make an attempt to topple the statue.

I have seen no credible evidence that the Iraqis intended to topple the statue before the US military decided to "target" it. Have you?

Quote:

These are not parallel statements and you know itor is your obtuseness genuine?

Bill, beyond being another ad hominem this has the unfortunate quality of employing a logical fallacy to deliver the ad hominem.

A fallacy to create a fallacy.

It's both a loaded question and an ad hominem.

Bill, you might fancy the notion that I disagree just to argue with you, it can serve as a way of writing off the lacking agreement to your position by ascribing it to what your remote-psychoanalysis can come up with.

But truth to tell, I am not interested in this level of argument. To respond in kind I'd have to construct such beauties as "You know I'm right but you just like being stubborn huh?", such is the level of this exchange.

I can get my fill of wanna-be shrinks with folk I know who took a psychology class once or who have once possessed a book on the subject. I come here for something more. I don't mind if you toss that stuff in with the evidentiary exchange but if that's your only stock and store we are again past the point at which this is edifying.

Quote:

Do you enjoy arguing so much that you will deliberately ignore obvious inconsistencies?

"Did you get bored of beating your wife and decide to use the internet as a medium to embarass yourself?"

Again Bill, I hope you can find alternate persons with whom to satisfy your interest in this level of exchange.

Quote:

The author of that trash could have accurately quoted the original piece and chose instead to twist it into what he wants to believe (and you obviously do to).

"Liar", "trash"... frankly Bill I'm as interested in your opinion of the fellow as I am in your opinion of how obtuse I am or whatever reasons you have conjured to explain your inability to convince me.

I urge you to consider that an improved methodology would simply be to delienate positions and substantiate them. While the sputtering rhetoric might constitute "arguing" for your nebulous position by your estimation I remain uninterested in an exchange with exclusive dealings in this your level of debate.

Quote:

Don't tell me I'm wrong; prove it.

I have outlined what I know of the event. I'd not mind satisfying this request but among your emotive ejaculations I am unsure what you want disproven.

I have posted an outline of what I know, perhaps you can find respite from the bluster to identify where you are in disagreement and we can compare the evidence available to us.

Quote:

I've provided you with obvious proof.

No Bill, you have not. And I'm beginning to think we differ so greatly in evidentiary standard and standards for arguments to render a meaningful debate inherently difficult.

But if I simply missed it among the ejaculatory mantras feel free to point it out and we can examine it. But if I don't return, it just means I'm not as interested in this argument as you think.

P.S. Re archaic use of "ejaculate" I'm just trying to bring back "ejaculate" for exclamations, nothing more. I've always thought it shouldn't have retreated into our passive vocabulary.

0 Replies

Okay Hobbit-Pod,
(I can't believe you don't find humor in that ad hominem Laughing

)You can pretend that you are less offensive in your delivery, but short of editing your posts, you cannot prove this either. (btw, If you stop trying to win for a minute, you might be able to see the truth.)

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The news coverage I watched was covering the story for a good while before PSYOP showed up.

Bull. Bill, quit making stuff up, this type of this is tantamount to a declaration that you do not really know what happened but know what you really would like to think happened.

Your accusation is as offensive as it is false. The PSYOP report clearly states:

The PSYOP guy wrote:

As we approached the street leading into the Al-Firdos Square, we could tell that there was a very large crowd of civilians starting to form up.

You provided pictures from a near empty square, so obviously "the news coverage I watched was covering the story for a good while before PSYOP showed up" Calling me a liar, is a pretty feeble way to argue especially when you later admit I speak the truth after I provide evidence.

Then, without any admission of wrongdoing for accusing me of making stuff up:

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The crowd and the "media circus" were already there when PSYOP showed up.
Yes, I know this.

Which part were you calling "made up" "Bull" the first time around?
____________________________________________

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The title implies that it was a PSYOP plan for propaganda purposes, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Craven de Kere wrote:

False, that is exactly the truth. PSYOP's job is propaganda and this was a PSYOP operation in which they did their job well.

The PSYOP guy wrote:

The Marine Corps colonel in the area saw the Saddam statue as a target of opportunity and decided that the statue must come down. Since we were right there, we chimed in with some loudspeaker support to let the Iraqis know what it was we were attempting to do.

"Since we were right there, we chimed in" "Since we were right there, we chimed in" makes it pretty clear it wasn't their idea. Idea

David Zucchino the liar wrote:

And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

Craven de Kere wrote:

PSYOPs identified a good symbolic target and captured a good moment, this is their job and they did it well.

Neither David Zucchino nor Craven de Kere have provided any evidence that it wasn't a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking. At best, David Zucchino is implying PSYOPs should be credited with what was actually a Marine Corps colonel in the area's decision, which still constitutes a lie. These guys were in the right place at the right time to "chime in", nothing more.

Later,

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
This is before they identified the statue as a target of opportunity, but the crowd of Iraqis had identified it a good while before that... I know, I saw.
Yes, I know this.

Then why did you deny it in the first place?

Then after I point out this admission;

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
but you've now agreed that the Iraqis were working on it before they showed up.
No I haven't because this is unclear to me. They were working on it before the US military came in and pulled it down but I do not know where that fits in the timeline and whether that was before the US military broadcast the idea.

So what's clear about your argument is that you don't know who thought of it despite claiming that you "know" the Iraqis did and also that you "know" they didn't. You're having a hard enough time agreeing with yourself. Laughing

And you accuse me of wanting to believe? I back up virtually every one of my assumptions with quotes from the document in question. You provide a made up timeline that you "think" is pretty accurate, complain that I haven't addressed it and claim it is more substantial proof than my direct quotes. Rolling Eyes

You've admitted that the Iraqis identified the target first but still maintain that this isn't a BS statement:

David Zucchino the liar wrote:

While it is true that the colonel decided to topple the statue, there is no evidence that suggests the Iraqis were not already trying to do so.

____________________________________________

Craven de Kere wrote:

PSYOPs brought this stage but that doesn't mean the Iraqi exprssion was "staged" or faked so much as merely elicited through timely PSYOPs.

Can you honestly say that you don't think that title was chosen to mislead people in that very way?
____________________________________________

Craven de Kere wrote:

You are just tying to salvage all the meaning you read into it, and that's cool because PSYOPs is not mutually incompatible with it. That PSYOPs managed this does not mean that the few hundred (probably less than 200) were not genuinely happy.

Some Iraqis really were there and happy about it. The PSYOPs made it out to be more. This was a well managed PSYOPs operation and you should not need to try to deny this.

Where you describe the Iraqis as being somewhat ornamental and used for effect by PSYOPs, PSYOPs reported:

The PSYOP guy wrote:

We were no longer in crowd control, as there was just no controlling this crowd at this time. We decided to just ride along with the crowd, and we started just kind of celebrating with the Iraqi people.

PSYOPs, as related by the true account, was simply going through the neighborhood making announcements. They didn't go there looking for something big; they happened upon the scene and happened to be there to correct the flag mistake (I doubt they played any important role in that either, because it was an obvious mistake, that would have been corrected anyway).

_____________________________________________

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven, please define what that title means to you. To me it implies that taking down the statue was PSYOPs idea

It was.

Even the liar (David Zucchino) was careful not to actually say that, but only imply it. Look closely:

For the title; the liar David Zucchino wrote:

Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue

Note, he doesn't credit PSYOP specifically.

David Zucchino the liar wrote:

And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

NOTE: the liar uses "And it was a" not "And it was this" or even "And this" Idea

Only Craven de Kere says toppling the statue was PSYOPs idea, while David Zucchino is careful not to That liar just implies it with all his might. Idea

_____________________________________________

Craven de Kere wrote:

When one is frustrated and has weak arguments one tends to use lame ad hominems like these.

That is a very interesting observation how very interesting that I clipped it from a post that was 90% ad hominem. Your hypocrisy on that subject is astounding. Idea

_____________________________________________

Then, after a post that was the single biggest and best example of ad hominem I have ever seen you say:

Craven de Kere wrote:

No Bill, you have not. And I'm beginning to think we differ so greatly in evidentiary standard and standards for arguments to render a meaningful debate inherently difficult.

You seem to think your brilliant use of the English language and superior ability to debate somehow excuses your patronizing tone and the fact that you've used more ad hominem in your arguments than I have.

You also seem to think that in a discussion about the accuracy, or lack thereof, of a reporter's interpretation of a document that; direct quotes from said document showing the inconsistencies are less compelling evidence than a timeline you made up after looking a sequence of pictures. Some grip you have. Laughing

May I suggest you try examining this as if you were trying to argue my position. I suspect my lack of eloquence is blinding you to the fact that I'm right. :wink:

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

David Zucchino the liar wrote:
to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

This is BS. At no point does the real story say that PSYOP "encouraged Iraqi civilians to assist". If you think it does: Prove it.
It actually says:
Quote:
to let the Iraqis know what it was we were attempting to do.

Prove what? The quibbling over the logomachy is irrelevant either wording is acceptable to me and I maintain that neither wording contradicts the outline of the event that I will encapsulate again below.

You keep arguing over and over that your quote be accepted and you neglect to notice that I keep telling you that I am perfectly willing to accept that quote and that in addition I do not think it supports your position or debunks the outline I posted.

Oops, I almost forgot:

This sequence here Craven is perhaps the best example of someone (with any ability) ignoring a valid point I have ever seen. If a mechanic told you he was going to fix your transmission, would you think he meant you should?

Logomachy is irrelevant? That is weak. This entire discussion was spawned by the author's choice of words.

0 Replies

Bill, you brought no evidence to the table, just a continuation of your conviction and the ejaculations about how unbelievable it is that I do not agree with the position you bring no evidence at all to support.

I've no interest in your intellectually bankrupt level of debate and will begin to avoid you altogether.

Please respect my wishes and do not address me in the future.

You can get your fix elsewhere.

0 Replies

Whatever dude. I will of course, respect your wishes after I respond to what you just wrote. You've attacked me on half a dozen threads in the last couple of weeks. Ever since I exposed your childish attack on me on the UN issue you've been baiting me.

On this thread I substantiated virtually every argument I put forward with a direct quote. I separated the truth from the lies with actual documentation. You didn't even keep your own argument straight. It must really be driving you crazy to be called on it. You also used more ad hominem than I, so don't pretend this is about that. You failed to prove your point and that probably doesn't happen to you very often. It must be disturbing to see your own contradictions laid our so clearly for the world to see. Funny you don't realize, that's the same thing you do to others, all the time. Frankly Craven, you're behaving like a spoiled child.

I've lost track of the number of people who've urged me, both publicly and privately, not to take your outbursts personally. I never have... because I consider your extraordinary talent for debate fascinating enough that I don't mind taking the abuse that accompanies it. Just like in chess, I prefer to play with those with more skill than myself as it is far more interesting and challenging that way. I also think you're a very fascinating person. I will miss the exchanges because I've come to think of you as my friend. Perhaps you'll change your mind when you grow up. Sad

0 Replies

Bill, I'm with you all the way.

I too watched every minute of that historic coverage and I clearly remember that the Iraqi citizens were making a feeble attempt to bring down a statute that was, obviously, going to deny an Iraqi strongman with a sledge and a crowd with a rope around the statue's head...before the American forces came along to help.

I also remember the skinny little man in a suit jacket who kept taking his turn with the sledge and trying to organize the whole effort. But, I guess he was an American agent.

That PsyOps may have targeted this statue is certainly likely, but immaterial. I have seen no proof whatsoever that the Iraqi crowd that initially tried to bring the statue down were paid agents of PsyOps.

What those who hold this was staged would have us believe is

1) There were no Iraqis who were moved to destroy the symbol of the dictator who oppressed them for decades
2) There is no shortage of Iraqis who can be bought by the US military (this despite the fact that we can't seem to buy enough to consistently give up the insurgents)

As for PsyOps: There is an implied criticism for at all having such a group. This from people who clamor for our winning the hearts and minds of Arabs if even only through symbolism. Duh...PsyOps.

I don't mean to presume Bill, but I think we share the same anger: If you believe the invasion of Iraq was unjustified or unwise, fine. Reasonable people can disagree. However it you insist on a scorched earth approach to each and every aspect of the operation, intent upon casting it as the work of Satan, you're, at best, full of BS.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I too watched every minute of that historic coverage and I clearly remember that the Iraqi citizens were making a feeble attempt to bring down a statute that was, obviously, going to deny an Iraqi strongman with a sledge and a crowd with a rope around the statue's head...before the American forces came along to help.

I also remember the skinny little man in a suit jacket who kept taking his turn with the sledge and trying to organize the whole effort. But, I guess he was an American agent.

The Iraqis did indeed try to do it themselves with a sledgehammer and rope, this is part of the outline I posted.

But do you know whether they were doing so before the US decided the statue was a target and broadcast this idea to the Iraqis?

This is the point of contention, this is what I asked for evidence about either way.

Quote:

That PsyOps may have targeted this statue is certainly likely

Given that they said they did I too find it likely.

Quote:

I have seen no proof whatsoever that the Iraqi crowd that initially tried to bring the statue down were paid agents of PsyOps.

I have seen evidence that they were brought in, but it didn't pass my credibility checks.

I have not seen evidence that the Iraqis did not get the idea from the US military broadcasting the intent to topple the statue over loudspeakers.

Have you?

Quote:

What those who hold this was staged would have us believe is

1) There were no Iraqis who were moved to destroy the symbol of the dictator who oppressed them for decades
2) There is no shortage of Iraqis who can be bought by the US military (this despite the fact that we can't seem to buy enough to consistently give up the insurgents)

Finn, perhaps some do, but this is not my position.

Again, the part of the event I would like to see substantiated is whether or not the Iraqis got the idea from the US military who broadcast the idea over loudspeakers.

That they did broadcast it is something the US military has stated, I want to know whether any Iraqis were working on it prior to this or whether they got the idea from the US.

My impression is that they got the idea from the broadcast. Do you have any evidence that would challenge this?

Quote:

As for PsyOps: There is an implied criticism for at all having such a group. This from people who clamor for our winning the hearts and minds of Arabs if even only through symbolism. Duh...PsyOps.

Perhaps some see it as implied criticism. I've said that I commend them for this job well done.

So if you are done addressing the unamed unpresent positions do you have any evidence toward the positions that were actually articulated and disputed herein?

0 Replies

Army Stage managed Fall Hussein Statue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know