Chem weapons in Iraq

[arcticpenguin]

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html

WASHINGTON — Iraqi troops south of Baghdad are armed with chemical weapons, Fox News has learned.

Senior Defense and other U.S. officials confirmed that intelligence reports indicate that Saddam Hussein's troops are armed with chemical munitions.

Interesting if true, I would prefer to have it confirmed by a more reliable source.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON — Iraqi troops south of Baghdad are armed with chemical weapons, Fox News has learned.

Senior Defense and other U.S. officials confirmed that intelligence reports indicate that Saddam Hussein's troops are armed with chemical munitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Interesting if true, I would prefer to have it confirmed by a more reliable source.

And Iraq tried to buy uranium from an African country and Saddam has requested replicas of US uniforms correct down to the last detail.

[pgwenthold]

On a more serious note, is anyone else concerned that Fox News is going to be the unofficial propaganda mouthpiece for the US government?

Not that any of the other news outlets are all that much better, mind you...

[ssibal]

Fox News is basically a tabloid.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ssibal
Fox News is basically a tabloid.

A characterization with which I would not necessarily disagree, but there are many who think that Fox is actually a reliable source. "We report, you decide" and all that.

Yeah, they report. What it is they are reporting is not clear, but they report stuff.

And as I said, it's not like the other news organizations are all that much better, and, moreover, there is something to be said about propaganda in war time. But I'd like to think that they won't just report every little rumour that they can get "verified" by the state department.

Call me cynical, but I'm to the point where I believe very little of what is reported about this stuff.

[crackmonkey]

So... why do you believe what you believe? What are your criteria for distinguishing truth from falsehood? I suspect it's something along the lines of " I KNOW that those who share my outlook would NEVER misrepresent the truth..."

[fishbob]

I KNOW that those who share my outlook would NEVER misrepresent the truth..." You would be mistaken to believe that. It is very difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood. I believe that we will seldom know the whole truth. If we think we know, then we are probably wrong. Be skeptical of those that support your side or the other side. Be skeptical always if the news comes from the media or from a politician. Oops - this sounds cynical.

[clinttaylor]

For what it's worth, I believe it was Winston Churchill that stated that the first casualty of war was the truth.

[fishbob]

I KNOW that those who share my outlook would NEVER misrepresent the truth..." You would be mistaken to believe that. It is very difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood. I believe that we will seldom know the whole truth. If we think we know, then we are probably wrong. Be skeptical of those that support your side or the other side. Be skeptical always if the news comes from the media or from a politician. Oops - this sounds cynical.

[crocodile deathroll]

It beats me how for all the the weapon detection apparatus the UN inspection team had, it took a small time journalist from foxnews to get hold of this new information. Hmmm

[Wolverine]

Well, according to a more recent report: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81466,00.html)

The reports indicate Saddam has given field-level commanders the authority to use chemical weapons on their own initiative, without further directives from the Baghdad, Pentagon officials said.

"We continue to receive reports supporting the assertion that there is a high risk the Iraqi regime would use chemical weapons at some point during any conflict," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday. It was the first explicit statement from the Defense Department discussing the chemical weapons risk.

The same information has now been reported on the other network news sites as well.

[Tony]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin



Interesting if true, I would prefer to have it confirmed by a more reliable source.


Just courious, but why is fox news less reliable than any other respected news souce? I have heard this contention many times but have yet to see any reliable evidence.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Tony



Just courious, but why is fox news less reliable than any other respected news souce? I have heard this contention many times but have yet to see any reliable evidence.

Those on the left will claim that Fox is somewhat biased towards the right, just as those on the right will claim that CNN, ABC et al is biased towards the left.

I'm not sure about reliability, but most news bashing seems to based on claims of bias.

[Tmy]

I heard Bill O'Rielly talking about ABC being "the most anti-american" network.

Low blow using patriotism to try to knock down a rival station.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Wolverine
The same information has now been reported on the other network news sites as well.

Doesn't make it true... The Pentagon made wide use of "disinformation" before and during the Gulf War. We won't know the truth until the shooting starts.

Or maybe sometime after. It was a year before the Penatgon admitted they lied about the effectiveness of the Patriot missles...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by patnray


Doesn't make it true... The Pentagon made wide use of "disinformation" before and during the Gulf War. We won't know the truth until the shooting starts.

Or maybe sometime after. It was a year before the Penatgon admitted they lied about the effectiveness of the Patriot missles...

See my comments above about propaganda.

For example, during WWII, news outlets not only reported propaganda, they participated in it as part of their duty. You think the BBC was an unbiased news source in WWII, only an objective reporter? Of course not.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by patnray
Doesn't make it true... The Pentagon made wide use of "disinformation" before and during the Gulf War. We won't know the truth until the shooting starts.

I never claimed it to be true (neither did FOX, or the DOD, for that matter -- there were caveats in all of the various articles, and no guarantees from the Pentagon).

The original context on this thread conveyed that FOX News was deemed to be somehow less reliable a source than others. I merely pointed out that other sources have now reported the same information.

[patnray]

Didn't mean to imply you claimed it was true. I just wanted to remind people to remain skeptical because disinformation, from all sides, is common during wars.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
Just courious, but why is fox news less reliable than any other respected news souce? I have heard this contention many times but have yet to see any reliable evidence.

Well, for one thing they recently argued in court for the right to print false news...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14984

That kinda kills their credibility in my book.