carlo.comments: carlo.log → Jan 31st 2005, 09:41 GMT
terpsichoros
· 4 years ago
I expect this will turn out to be like the fake "looted museum" story, where most of the damage was caused by Saddam's minions, and the story is being over-hyped by people who can't allow themselves to believe anything positive about Bush.
In particular, from one of the BBC articles:
[Quote] But US military spokesman Lt Col Steven Boylan said the base, which has around 6,000 troops under Police command, is needed to "further defeat terrorists and insurgents".
He told BBC Newshour: "Any of the excavations or earth work that we have done in order to do our operations... was done in consultation with the Babylon museum director and an archaeologist." [Quote]
How different point of views can be. I wouldn't consider an "US military spokesman" an unbiased source.
terpsichoros
· 4 years ago
Jeck -
I'd trust a US miltary officer being quoted by name far over any reporter's opinion or anonymous source, and I'd trust the officer's account to provide completeness when it doesn't explicitly contradict the report of a civilian expert, as in the case of the BBC article I quoted above. (I'd even give lightly more weight to a US Army officer over a named civilian if the storis conflict, but they don't explicitly so, despite the reporter's attempt to make them appear to conflict.)
Xyleth
· 4 years ago
[Quote] I'd trust a US miltary officer being quoted by name far over any reporter's opinion or anonymous source [Quote]
Which isn't the same as saying he's unbiased.
Although I'd tend to agree with Terps. Military Officers tend to be a darn site more straight with the truth than Journilaists with an axe to grind.
The problem with the US and UK military these days is telling the real officers from the PR reps in uniform :(
jeck
· 4 years ago
Well. First I think it doesn't mean much if the army "consults" with an expert. No one said the military were following the experts recommendations, didn't they?
[Quote] In the report, Curtis acknowledged that at first the U.S. presence had helped to protect the site from looters. But subsequent work - including the decision to cover large areas of the site with gravel brought in from elsewhere to provide car parks and helipads - was damaging, he said. [Quote]
[Quote] KIRSTIN AIKEN: Can you be certain that troops are responsible for all that damage, after all, how can you be certain of the condition of the city of Babylon before they moved in?
JOHN CURTIS: Well, I have been to Babylon many times over the years, and in fact the last time I went there was in June 2003, just after the war, and at that time only one of the figures in the Ishtar gate had been damaged, so damage to the others has occurred since that time and it's quite obvious the sorts of things that I'm talking about have been caused as a result of turning Babylon into a military camp.
It's quite clear to the trained archaeological eye that many of the trenches are very recent indeed. [Quote]
(For those who haven't read all the articles: John Curtis is the keeper of the British Museum's Ancient and Near East Department, who wrote the report which lead to the news coverage.)
That does not sound "over-hyped" to me. Of course I chose to trust an archeologist more than a Lt Col.
Edited because I never spell archeologist at the first try. Edited on Jan 31st 2005, 18:46 by jeck
Xyleth
· 4 years ago
Well now you've named him and given his position I'd be inclined to trust him more than an Army man on such matters. And not just because he's from the British Museum, but because he is an expert in his field and the Army man is not.
Also the Army, any army, isn't known for hiring 'experts' who use the 'no' word a lot.
Carlo Zottmann
· 4 years ago
[Quote] Did Süddeutsche Zeitung bother to include that? Somehow I doubt that they did, given how generally biased against America, to the point of spreading false propaganda, much of the German media is. [Quote]
Actually, they did. They also noticed that the camp in question is under oversight of the Polish troops.
I know how an army works. Any army, for that matter. They tend to have a rather pragmatic view of the situation, especially in times of crisis. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you. Still, I would be pissed if it wasn't an US contingent roaming these sites but the German army, too. We're talking about a historical site of a great significance here... the cradle of mankind, in a way. As I've said, I'd expect some sensibility for the sites there. Not from the army itself, but from the government commanding it. Historical sites of this kind should be off limits, for looters and army camps like this. You can protect it from a perimeter, you don't have to build your base inside it.
Yesyesyes, remnants of Saddams troops were hiding in old mosques during the more hot phases of the war etc -- they were the "bad guys". The Polish and US troops are doing pretty much the same right now, even if the reason is a different one.
[Quote] anything positive about Bush [Quote]
Personal opinion --- Bad traits: looks like corporate property; believes in the superiority of his belief, willing to sacrifice the World for "good"; doesn't read much (said the latter about himself). Nicest traits: short name, full hair.
The US government has never in it's entire history looked more corporation-owned than right now. Again, personal opinion, based on an outside view. I follow global news media, german news media, and to a certain degree even US media. I think I have an okay view of the overall situation.
Edited on Jan 31st 2005, 19:54 by Carlo
Chrisfs
· 4 years ago
A few of us speak German , and there's always translation software in Google or babelfish (though admittedly it's usually a bad translation)
All Comments
In particular, from one of the BBC articles:
Did Süddeutsche Zeitung bother to include that? Somehow I doubt that they did, given how generally biased against America, to the point of spreading false propaganda, much of the German media is.
Edited on Jan 31st 2005, 15:28 by terpsichoros
I'd trust a US miltary officer being quoted by name far over any reporter's opinion or anonymous source, and I'd trust the officer's account to provide completeness when it doesn't explicitly contradict the report of a civilian expert, as in the case of the BBC article I quoted above. (I'd even give lightly more weight to a US Army officer over a named civilian if the storis conflict, but they don't explicitly so, despite the reporter's attempt to make them appear to conflict.)
Which isn't the same as saying he's unbiased.
Although I'd tend to agree with Terps. Military Officers tend to be a darn site more straight with the truth than Journilaists with an axe to grind.
The problem with the US and UK military these days is telling the real officers from the PR reps in uniform :(
Also an AP-article states:And from a transcript from ABC's "The World Today":(For those who haven't read all the articles: John Curtis is the keeper of the British Museum's Ancient and Near East Department, who wrote the report which lead to the news coverage.)
That does not sound "over-hyped" to me. Of course I chose to trust an archeologist more than a Lt Col.
Edited because I never spell archeologist at the first try.
Edited on Jan 31st 2005, 18:46 by jeck
Also the Army, any army, isn't known for hiring 'experts' who use the 'no' word a lot.
I know how an army works. Any army, for that matter. They tend to have a rather pragmatic view of the situation, especially in times of crisis. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you. Still, I would be pissed if it wasn't an US contingent roaming these sites but the German army, too. We're talking about a historical site of a great significance here... the cradle of mankind, in a way. As I've said, I'd expect some sensibility for the sites there. Not from the army itself, but from the government commanding it. Historical sites of this kind should be off limits, for looters and army camps like this. You can protect it from a perimeter, you don't have to build your base inside it.
Yesyesyes, remnants of Saddams troops were hiding in old mosques during the more hot phases of the war etc -- they were the "bad guys". The Polish and US troops are doing pretty much the same right now, even if the reason is a different one.
Personal opinion --- Bad traits: looks like corporate property; believes in the superiority of his belief, willing to sacrifice the World for "good"; doesn't read much (said the latter about himself). Nicest traits: short name, full hair.
The US government has never in it's entire history looked more corporation-owned than right now. Again, personal opinion, based on an outside view. I follow global news media, german news media, and to a certain degree even US media. I think I have an okay view of the overall situation.
Edited on Jan 31st 2005, 19:54 by Carlo