Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

About the firing of the The Mirror's editor...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 01:32 AM
Original message
About the firing of the The Mirror's editor...
over those supposedly fake photos.

I would like to know what the supposed evidence is that these photos are fake. I know the army originally said that the rifle appeared to be the wrong make, the truck appeared to be the wrong make, and that the soldiers were wearing floppy hats.

Apparently all of these had never been issued to British soldiers in Iraq and thus the pictures had to be fake. Well, JoFerret and I already proved that the floppy hat accusation was a lie:



So how are we supposed to believe the rest of the accusations that army made in regards to these photos?

Is there any new evidence that these photos are fake, or is the Mirror covering for Blair?

I've just found one article where the supposed "investigation" into the photos has identified the EXACT "bedford truck" that the photos were supposedly taken in.

How they managed to do this from interior shots is quite amazing. Even MORE amazing is that they not only know what kind of truck it is, but know the exact truck and where it is located in the UK, BUT DID NOT KNOW THEY HAD ISSUED FLOPPY HATS TO SOLDIERS IN IRAQ!

So, do YOU believe this "investigation" or, like me, do you believe that the Mirror sacrificed Piers Morgan in order to put the cat back in the bag?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Latter
the riffle was also issued to the troops
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mr blur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 04:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well the Mirror has always been a sleazy little rag
even though it now courts some kind of respectability by supporting Labour. I suspect that someone has been got at, they found a scapegoat and we're ll supposed to rest easily in our beds because "our boys wouldn't do that sort of thing".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mr blur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The irony...
<quote>
Last night Colonel David Black, a former QLR commanding officer, said: "Doubtless I am right in saying that the regiment won't feel triumphant. They will feel vindicated and relieved and we can now see an end to this business. We can get on with life."
</quote>

Or, indeed, with Death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. They were fake.
If you're familiar with the SA-80 and SA-80A2 rifles, it's quite clear that it was an SA-80, not the SA-80A2. One of the pics clearly shows an SA-80 charging handle, which is metal, round, and hollow. These were all replaced when Hechler and Koch Gmbh did the retrofit to convert the SA-80 to the SA-80A2, with a charging handle that is easily identifiable as different, since it has a plastic cap, it isn't hollow, and it's teardrop shaped. Since the SA-80 is obsolete, and only SA-80A2s are current issue to the British military (and have been for quite a while now), the pictures were not taken recently in Iraq. It's the equivalent of a picture showing a Viet-nam era M-16 with the triangular handguards, when the picture is supposed to show an M-4 carbine, which is an entirely different beastie.

When and where they were taken is unknown, but it wasn't someplace where current-issue MoD equipment is required or issued. And before anybody says "maybe it was a replacement part", they were replaced because the old style charging handle was unserviceable. It didn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Which pic would that be?
Because NONE of the pics I have seen shows the charging handle which is above the magazine.



source

This is the L85A2, with the teardrop shaped charging handle.

Here are the two torture pictures that show the rifle:





source

Now tell me where in those two pictures it is possible to see the charging handle?

If it is not one of these two pictures, please point me to where I can see the picture.

Remember, they also said that British troops in Iraq were not issued with floppy hats, which is clearly a lie, because I already posted a picture with two British Marines wearing the "unissued" hats in question late last year.

So, even if these pictures DO show an L85A1, what proof is there that no British troops were issued that variant of the rifle in Iraq? There were after all major supply problems, and I even recall hearing about a question in Parliament before the war asking the Miinister of Defence to assure the House that the upgraded L85A2 would be provided in sufficient numbers for the troops. Is it possible that they failed in that rush job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. neither.
there were a fair number of other pics shown.

The figures I have for the H&K contract show over 100,000 of the guns have been retrofitted. The other guns that were in inventory have not, but have been retired while they argue about paying to have them retrofitted, too. As for proof that the obsoltet rifle wasn't issued, well, the MoD has said so, and other sources, from before the blowup, said that the A2 was the only one issued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. The Army said so?
The Army also swore black and blue that their soldiers were properly equiped with ballistic vests, until a soldier died after being ordered to give his to someone else...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestmoi Donating Member (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. I think the US created the fakes to take heat off the US.
What are the chances that British troops were also taking snapshots of abuse. And unlike the American photos which have soldiers mugging for the camera these alleged fake photos don't have soldiers that can be identified.

That these photos appeared when they did and thus took heat off the US is just too coincidental.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC