home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.fan.noam-chomsky      Founded cognitive approach to politics      62,757 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 61,287 of 62,757   
   Dan Clore to Joshua Dougherty   
   Re: WikiLeaks Analysis Suggests Hundreds   
   09 Mar 11 11:21:15   
   
   0ec72fab   
   XPost: talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.libertarian, alt.anarchism   
   XPost: alt.society.anarchy   
   From: clore@columbia-center.org   
      
   Joshua Dougherty wrote:   
   > On Mar 9, 6:50 am, Dan Clore  wrote:   
   >   
   >> I don't think that that's actually a match. There's the same or   
   >> very similar MO, and both reports give the target of the attack as   
   >> a Shiite mosque in Baghdad. But not only is the number of   
   >> casualties different (50 killed versus 86-87) the name of the   
   >> mosque given is different -- Khillani versus Ghai Lani. Using the   
   >> Antiwar.com archives, I've found a Yahoo report that is definitely   
   >> the same incident as IBC reports (IBC doesn't list it as a source),   
   >> and it gives the name of the mosque as Khulani. Khillani and   
   >> Khulani are obviously just different transliterations, but Ghai   
   >> Lani looks different enough that it seems unlikely to be another   
   >> transliteration of the same name, though it's possible. The Yahoo   
   >> report also gives the number wounded as over 200, whereas the   
   >> WikiLeaks report gives the number wounded as 125.   
   >>   
   >> But here's the real kicker: The WikiLeaks report gives the time of   
   >> issue as 07:50:00. The IBC report gives the time of the incident as   
   >> 2:00 p.m. Now, these WikiLeaks reports use the military 24 hour   
   >> system rather than a.m. and p.m. So if the WikiLeaks report were   
   >> for the same incident as the IBC report, it would have to be issued   
   >> some time after 14:00:00.   
   >>   
   >> So, I conclude that these are clearly two separate incidents, if   
   >> the information is at all accurate. It's far from unknown for   
   >> insurgents to coordinate attacks using the same MO at around the   
   >> same time, so I wonder if that isn't the case here.   
   >   
   > Um Dan, those are the same incident. Khulani, Khillani, Khulani and   
   > Ghai Lani are all just transliterations. I've worked with iraqi place   
   >  names and transliterations like this for years now so am familiar   
   > with it. There is nothing unusual about differences like those above.   
   > They all are the same word, just with a difference in whether the   
   > sound of the Arabic word should start with an English 'Kh...' or   
   > 'Gh...' sound. In this case, the press mostly decided to write it up   
   > in English with a 'Kh', while the US military decided to use 'Gh' in   
   > this log.   
   >   
   > Also, your "real kicker" about the time of day is just some kind of   
   > mistake on the website ishikawa cited. WikiLeaks provided IBC with   
   > the unredacted logs to work with. The date and time given in the log   
   > is:   
   >   
   > "Date:	2007-06-19 13:50:00"   
   >   
   > And the log gives a detailed timeline in the text. These numbers get   
   > redacted on the website, but you can confirm 1:50PM from the   
   > unredacted text:   
   >   
   > "TIMELINE:   
   >   
   > 1350: ROMEO ELEMENT CALLS STRIKE TO REPORT A LARGE EXPLOSION ON RTE   
   > WILD THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE A VBIED   
   >   
   > 1432: SHIA MOSQUE GHAI LHANI WAS TARGETED BUT THERE IS A REPORT THAT   
   > IT POSSIBLY TARGETED AN MP PATROL ALSO   
   >   
   > 1458: UPDATE FROM THE UNIT ON THE GROUND IS THAT THE DRIVER WAS   
   > INSIDE OF A TRUCK FILLED WITH PROPANE TANKS WHEN HE TRIED TO CROSS   
   > THE CURB THE TRUCK GOT STUCK AND WAS DETONATED THERE.   
   >   
   > 1800: BJCC REPORTS 50X KILLED AND 125 X WOUNDED"   
   >   
   > The time of 7:50 AM never appears anywhere in the actual log, so i   
   > don't know why it says that on that website. Perhaps there is some   
   > kind of bug with the dateline on that site. You can however see again   
   >  that 1:50PM is correct in the 'tracking number' column on the left   
   > on the website:   
   >   
   > "20070619135038SMB"   
   >   
   > That means 2007, June 19 at 1350 (or 1:50 PM)   
   >   
   > But even if there had been a disparity with the time of day between   
   > the two sources that wouldn't necessarily mean it didn't match, it   
   > could just mean that a media report got the time wrong.   
      
   Thanks, Josh. You've provided more than adequate explanations for two of   
   the three major discrepancies here. (The third is the number of   
   casualties.) I think that's good enough to conclude that these reports   
   are about the same incident. There was a reason I qualified my conclusions.   
      
   --   
   Dan Clore   
      
   New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:   
   http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw   
   My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:   
   http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-unspeakable-and-others/6124911   
   Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:   
   http://tinyurl.com/292yz9   
   News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:   
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo   
      
   Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the   
   immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.   
   -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca