US accused of airstrike cover-up (U.N. report)

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 07/29/2002 | Dumeetha Luthra

[andy_card]

The United Kingdom is President of the Security Council this month. We got next month. Then comes Bulgaria.

[Enemy Of The State]

"A UN source said that the report was produced by a team of “experienced and reputable UN people"

Bwhahahahahaha...Reputable UN people? And whats next, I suppose the easter bunny really exists too?

[wny]

Mmmmmm........Who to believe. Donald Rumsfeld, a man of honesty and integrity with access to the aircraft camera footage as well as satellite data---or---UN weenies quoted in an English anti-american propaganda rag? Tough choice.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The"United Nazis"are always making this stuff up!

[Almondjoy]

Wow it's amazing how far people go to miss the point of a post. I hope you didn't mind wasting your time with your post because you missed mine entirely. The point of my post had nothing to do with the incident itself.. had nothing to do with a soliders right to fire in a hot zone(although by reading your post it seems you would have given a break to the pilot who broke proceedure and bombed canadians). In any case the point of this was to say that the US shouldn't be covering any of it up. The point of this is to say.. war is hell.. deal with it.

[cva66snipe]

had nothing to do with a soliders right to fire in a hot zone(although by reading your post it seems you would have given a break to the pilot who broke proceedure and bombed canadians). In any case the point of this was to say that the US shouldn't be covering any of it up

And why pray tell are the Canadians there? In our war? Did they attack Canada also? Oh yea this is a U.N. monitored joint effort. Common sense says fire back when fired upon. Asking for permission from HQ and the others shortens ones life expectancy as it is then just TDL. We need to fight our own wars with vengance rather than diplomacy and avoid reckless entanglements such as having to use multi nation troops which involves us answering to other nations for our actions.

Oh yea, how could I forget our last two former POTUS shut down our military so we are now beggars to other nations. We didn't even have enough aviable active duty air power to cover our tail after 9/11. Now that's something that deserves some answers too. A ship two days away from fleet sent into a known hostile port is something to answer for. Shots fired in a war zone is not.

That's not how war for victory is fought that's how politicans fight not soldiers. In the past 50 years we forgot that lesson. Reckon we should go back and answer for the bombs dropped on Japan as well? I'm sure some allies were likely close not to mention innocent civilians.

[TheLooseThread]

"I agree.. but were covering up.."

AJ,

Read your post and I think I understand it. My disagreement with you is that you are assuming facts not yet in evidence.

The US fact finding mission was quite skeptical about the stated casulties. They didn't find that many bodies and there wasn't enough blood around. I trust our fact finding mission more the UN's.

[Almondjoy]

Exactly I'm basing it off facts as yet of unknown.. and so are you.. I'm sure the real truth is in the middle.. I'm just saying that full disclosure is better than lying about it.

[TheLooseThread]

"...I'm basing it off facts as yet of unknown...is better than lying about it. "

If.. the... facts... are... unknown... how... do... you... know... they... are... lying?

[Almondjoy]

I never said they WERE lying... I merely suggested that the report MAY have merit and what it came down to (since you obviously have no clue where this conversation was going) was that I was merely making a point that we SHOULDNT be lying about anything.

[TheLooseThread]

"I agree.. but were covering up.. it just goes to show that our gov't can't even trust our own people with the truth..."

I've read all your posts in this thread. Not really much of a "conversation." You use the phrase "covering up" here, and refer to lying elsewhere. The point still remains that you have made this conclusion based on no evidence.

You are the person making the claim. Therefor you are the one with the requirement to back it up.

You have accused our government of a "cover up". Defend your claim.

[Almondjoy]

Sigh.. I based that statement based on what the UN had said. Now if you are making the point that the gov't has never covered up information.. I'll have to laugh at you. So again.. yes I'm basing my information off a unproven story.. but then again like I said it's a hypotehtical situation.. if you could actually READ you would know this. How's the sand feel around your neck anyways?

[Beenliedto]

Yes! And then the UN building. Then bulldoze it. Then cover it up!!

They hit the wrong building?

[TheLooseThread]

"How's the sand feel around your neck anyways?"

You confuse cynicism with insight.

The bottom line is that you have no evidence of a coverup by our people.