NY Times: Iraqis Tell of Looting at Munitions Site

NY Times ^ | 10/28/04

[Log]

Three Iraq's carried off 380 TONS of explosive??????

Sure. They each put about a half pound in their pockets. Let's see that's 760,000 pounds of explosives times 2. Heck, that's only 1.52 million Iraqis. I bet there's at least that many people passing by there each day. The New York Times probably had at least a million reporters at that storage site.

[agincourt1415]

Yugo, must have been the Turbo .4 Liter with dual overhead squirrels.

[Phsstpok]

New York Times source of absolute truth about 'missing explosives': Iraqi looters and Baathist officers

ABC source of absolut truth about John Kerry's 'tour' in Vitenam: Vietcong terrorists

I think I'm detecting a pattern here.....

[agincourt1415]

By the way did anyone in the Government leak a copy of Kerry's BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE?

Remember, You heard if first on Freeper!

[ml1954]

I was just looking at the same link. From other links I've found that RDX has a 170% TNT equivalent. So this 380 tons is equivalent to less that 700 tons of TNT or a .7 kiloton nuclear device. I'm not even sure a nuke can be made with that small of a yield. This is much ado about little. Terrorists with enough money should be able to get their hands on all of the high explosives they want.

[ForGod'sSake]

Can you say CBS? The Slimes didn't vet the story...they just ran with it.

That's my understanding also. Can you say Mary Mapes? CBS producer and left wingnut. I'd bet a cold one her finger prints are all over this one just like Rather's "memos".

FGS

[HawaiianGecko]

I agree 380 tons of 400,000 + 380 tons is only nine ten thousandths of the total or nine one hundreths of one percent. BIG DEAL, lol... Oh My God, there are explosives in Iraq! Kerry is making himself look like a foolish putz.

[Mike Darancette]

Did 400 looters take 2,000 pounds each or did 2,000 looters take 400 pounds each?

[ForGod'sSake]

The Washington Times will not load. This article; main page; nothing.

FGS

[ml1954]

The Washington Times will not load. This article; main page; nothing. FGS

I has to try several times to get it. The site must be getting hammered.

[ml1954]

Not only that, but using artillery shells for bombs instead of a box of RDX has a desirable and much sought after side affect, for those intent on using explosives to maximize damage and kill people. It's called shrapnel.

[ForGod'sSake]

Yep. Finally loaded. I didn't check to see if this article had been posted as its own thread on FR. If not, it should be. I'll poke around some.

FGS

[ForGod'sSake]

Posted HERE at 10:34 P.M.

[endthematrix]

"a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands."

This I believe. That site was a nuclear research facility. Who knows what names and damaging info was in there?

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

One wonders how it is possible for anyone to be so gullible to swallow anything at the NYT but already some of the spin is taking hold - so much so that part of the original 'facts' as told have now gone by the wayside as if they never existed. Remember how when the story was first released it was deliberately slanted to make it look like the whole sorry 'missing explosives' episode was something that just happened recently - like maybe last week? This aspect has very conveniently been slowly fading into the fog and replaced with an argument that the exact time of disappearance is still not known but was sometime after the troops first came to the site. This has been hammered upon by the NYT in subsequent articles (and of course picked up by all the shills on the boob-tube) such that it's as if this is what they had said all along. One can't ever lose sight that the original insinuation (that it was a recent event)was the part of the lie that caught everyone's attention first - and by allowing it to be ignored is to let the slimes escape unscathed from the false pretext that they had set up. That they have gotten caught in their web of lies is a given - but to cede them this point is to allow them to change the argument from one where a damning story that supposedly occurred during the election campaign (when the war was over and troops are trying to secure the peace) is replaced with a damning story that occurred some time in the past in the middle of a time when there was so much activity going on that it is hard to keep the time-line all straight (or so it could be argued). By taking this tact, it makes it a lot easier for the slimes to obfuscate and slither away and makes it less likely that they can be held accountable.

[Ruth A.]

Reminds me of how the museum was looted in Iraq...

[ApplegateRanch]

These people at the "Old Grey Whore" are a joke

Too bad they didn't "wear grey" 140 years ago; we wouldn't have to be dealing with them now.

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

A report I heard on Glenn Beck's show said the "looting" would have to amount to the equivalent of 100 men working 12 hours a day for 10 days loading 40 very large truck.

Looters's avarice can be amazing, but I doubt they worked like army ants for days in cleaning this place out without detection.

The NYT just wants to keep the story alive with what is left of their reputation until after the election. Then they figure with one of their own at the helm, they will be able to restore things to the level of control over the dumbed down public they once enjoyed.