Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Haditha may have been a hoax?

  1. Jun 10, 2006 #1
    I'm not asserting it's true. I'm just pointing out new information, admittedly circumstancial, that raises red flags about the credibility of the story.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5566

    Take from it what you will.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 14, 2006 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think the fact that a few of the soldiers involved have since commited suicide is a somewhat strong indication that this isn't a hoax
     
  4. Jun 14, 2006 #3
    Now it's my turn to ask for sources. I tried some amateur fact checking on that, but came up empty.

    For what it's worth, this story is a little wider spread than I thought. Saying it was an outright hoax may have been a little strong. But there is definitely evidence of serious media spin.

    edit: not credible news sources
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 15, 2006
  5. Jun 14, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I heard it on the news so meh...

    jesus christ searching about something to do with iraq and using "suicide" as a search term is about helpful sa searching with my eyes closed... but ill keep looking.
     
  6. Jun 14, 2006 #5
    Any reputable news agencies picking this argument up?
     
  7. Jun 14, 2006 #6
    Well... Considering that it's supposedly reputable news agencies (Reuters, Time) that would be lambasted if this turns out to be true, you won't see it in any place that left-leaning people consider to be reputable. At least not until the evidence becomes too much to deny. Of course even then, who knows. I'm sure there are still plenty of people who think that Dan Rather was pure as the driven snow.

    But anyway, at this point it's still speculation.

    Well I -have- heard stories of 3 prisoners committing suicide at Gitmo. Is that the story you meant to site?
     
  8. Jun 14, 2006 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I was thinking that except that i THINK i heard it like a couple of days before the thing at Gitmo... but that sounds too likely of an explanation to throw out. I guess it was about the suicides at Gitmo... makes sense.
     
  9. Jun 15, 2006 #8
    Being a fairly straight down the middle guy myself I was actually asking for news agencies who show a reasonable attempt to remain impartial, but even reputable right-leaning reporting would be more convincing than a few blogs. I'm sure I can find blogs speculating that Bush is the Anti-Chirst, but I'm not going to get worked up over the idea.
     
  10. Jun 15, 2006 #9
    Those aren't sources - those are blogs containing the thoughts and speculations of individuals. This thread appears to have no basis other than speculation.
     
  11. Jun 15, 2006 #10
    Here is a good one. He ihas a very convincing argument. :wink:

    http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
     
  12. Jun 15, 2006 #11
    I agree. I checked em out yesterday and decided it wasn't even worth a response.

    SRM is new, he will soon discover that PF users are a little more sophisticated than the average blog reader.
     
  13. Jun 15, 2006 #12

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Holy Cow!! If you check out the picture where Laura Bush is giving the Satanic 'horned salute' with her right hand, she's also signaling the number '6' with her left using the Chisenbop method (where the thumb signifies '5' and the other four fingers are additional '1's as needed).

    Proof positive she's the wife of the antichrist. :rofl:
     
  14. Jun 15, 2006 #13
    Just to be fair and air some equal time. Here is the website of the worshippers of Bush.

    http://www.bushislord.com/index.php
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2006
  15. Jun 16, 2006 #14
    Well those aren't the words I would use, but don't worry. I figured it out a few threads back.

    I stated up front that I was not asserting that the implications were proven true. It's a collection of circumstancial evidence that could possibly make most open minded people start to wonder, though.

    It's far more coinicidences than any left wing blogger needs to start screaming from the rafters, though. I'm just throwing it out there, so you can be braced if it ends up getting picked up by any "sophisticated" sources.

    I'm really just here to learn more about theories behind space travel. Honest. Even though my thread was mostly ignored, I've learned a lot from digging through other forums. I just hope Astronuc doesn't forget me when he gets home from his travels. And God willing, the busier I get writing my story the less you'll have to roll your eyes my silly ramblings.

    Like pointing out who our REAL enemy is...
    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8LJBG0.html

    Let's just hope my politics won't stop any potential comic fans from checking out my book once I get it started. o:)
     
  16. Jun 16, 2006 #15
    The problem is you only presented enough of an argument to make wishful thinkers wonder, in the manor which other wishful thinkers who buy into the Bush is the Anti-Christ web sites. Open minded people aren't looking for claims of coincidences to use as circumstantial evidence in order to perpetuate a preferred conclusion, such loosely strung together arguments are only useful for comic value.
     
  17. Jun 16, 2006 #16
    If they were all that loose, I'd never have mentioned it. It's unreal how much idle speculation is posted here all the time that's based on either nothing or a single article that only tells half the story... and they simply state things as fact without disclaimers. No one seems to have a problem with them.

    But I realize it's easier to discredit the messenger than consider the substance of the argument. That's what logic is all about.
     
  18. Jun 16, 2006 #17
    You, as the messenger here, didn't put any substance in your argument. If you had done more than present a claim and link to a few blogs, I might have been compelled to discuss the details of your position. In the absence of that, I contest that reputable sources are required for this topic to serve any value.
     
  19. Jun 16, 2006 #18
    I was going to reply, by more or less regurgitating what was already adequately covered by the blog, citing documented facts that, when put together, form a far more cohesive story than Plamegate wishes it could be.

    Then I find out that my posts were edited. You people are such unbelieveable hyporcrites. You don't apply even 1/4 this much scrutiny on a post that attacks the right. All of your talk about peer review, but it only applies to arguments that are inconvient to your world view. One CNN article that leaves out half the details of the issue is credible, but a researched sequence of events isn't? Give me a break.

    Bloggers do more fact checking than most network execs seem to feel the need to do. If Mary Mapes had this much circumstancial ammo against Bush whether it was validated or not she would have broadcast it as fact the second it broke. Oh wait... she did.

    Enjoy your little world where Bush is the antichrist and the word of mass media networks is god. I want no part of it.
     
  20. Jun 17, 2006 #19
    Talk about beating a dead horse. :zzz:

    Since you brought it up I guess I should take the time to add a few facts that were probably not available on the wing-nut blogs you are so fond of.

    I never saw the 60 minutes show because I do not watch television. I did however read the military records available online.

    Bush did not serve in the Alabama Air National Guard as per his classification. His classification required that he train and fly with his group.

    No one from his unit remembers him.

    The commandants secretary at the time, who first questioned the memo, said she doubted that he wrote it, although it did reflect the commandants sentiments.

    When 60 minutes made one mistake, Dan Rather resigned. When the CIA made multiple mistakes, George Tenet gets the Medal of Freedom.

    Bush and his entire administration are chicken hawks. Not a one of them has ever been in combat, yet they have no problem lying to sell a war that has cost the lives of 2,500 soldiers.
     
  21. Jun 17, 2006 #20
    Isn't that a case of the pot calling the opium dope. :rolleyes:

    The article you linked is doing exactly that in its lame attempt to sow some doubt about the incident. They are attacking the character of everyone associated with the reports, including a 9 year old girl who survived the incident.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?