NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
use Perl Log In
darobin (1316)
Thursday February 20, 2003
11:52 AM
CNN lies -- film at 11
"CNN is doing a bang up job. As Dan Hon investigates, their online transcript of Hans Blix's report to the UN is missing 866 words. The bits Blix said about Iraq complying with the UN resolution, and the bit where he refutes Colin Powell's evidence from the week before. Nice and subtle, boys." (from Dan Hon, via DannyAyers).
What do you know, next we might be finding out that unloaded missiles fly a little farther than when loaded. SHOCKING!!!
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Or is it a BUG?"
"Let's call it an accidental feature. :-)"
--Larry Wall in <6909@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
US Media complicity (Score:2)
Re:US Media complicity (Score:2)
I was being midly ironic ;) Lets hope that the consequences will be less dire this time...
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
CNN (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of the usual "CNN is predominantly " rants, how about another theory: CNN wants a war. No, not because they support Bush ( a couple years ago they were called the clinton news network by some folks, make up your mind on who cnn favors ) , but because it boosts ratings.
When Persion Gulf War v1.0 broke out, CNN was on the frontlines. Everybody praised them as being the "leaders" and that they finally "came into their own". Hell, they even made a movie about it. But 12 years has passed, CNN is getting stomped by FOX News Network, etc etc, and jobs are getting cut. So do you think that CNN wont jump on a chance to get their name out in front again?....
Reply to This
Missles (Score:2)
Note, however, that Blix in his Feb. 14 presentation said, unequivocally, that those missles are prohibited. Resolution 687 doesn't say one word about "fully loaded" missles. It just says that if they have a range of over 150km -- without qualification, so we must assume it is under any conditions, unless a subsequent resolution added qualification -- they are prohibited. Following th
Re:Missles (Score:2)
Yes, but I'm not surprised that, missing qualification, each party would interpret it its way. No need to stretch words, any proper missile tech sheet will give you range at min and max loads. Whoever specified 150km without adding "at max load" is sorrily incompetent.
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
Re:Missles (Score:2)
Why? Without qualification, it means "at min load" by default. We don't need to question how to interpret it. There's no room for equivocation. The wording is not unclear.
It's a simple boolean. Either it can exceed 150km, or it cannot. It can, by everyone's admission, including Iraq's. It is therefore proscribed, and Iraq must therefore destroy them, all their major related parts, and their repair and production facilities
Re:Missiles (Score:2)
An unloaded missile is a civilian rocket :)
I'm well in favour of destroying iraqi missiles (in fact, any missile), it's just that the reaction of some that started shouting "LOOK LOOK THEY'RE CHEATING WE'VE GOT PROOF" when those came out was laughable, and betrays a will to go to war that goes beyond the hunt for WMDs.
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
Re:Missiles (Score:2)
It is just one more example of Iraq not cooperating if they do not destroy them. If they do destroy them, they are still not cooperating in many significant ways (both Blix and El Baradei are still sa