www.Iraqwar.ru admits being misinformation

by Bret Studly Thu Apr 10, 2003 14:01 sr_mad_science at yahoo dot com

"and if you read back through the reports, I'm sure that most people will agree that they are immeasurably more accorate than the cack we've been getting from the mainstream."

Surely you're kidding? They've made a whole serious of claims which have turned out to be unprovable or false such as:

* The Royal Navy operates 300 Sea Knight Helicoptors
- they have never operated Sea Knights

* There is a shortage of guided weapons and the Americans are resorting to carpet bombing
- There are at least 20,000 JDAM remaining

* Endless claims of combat deaths which we are suposed to hear about in the coming days

An example:
"All the claims made by aviation commander of the coalition, general Michael Mosley, about “…Iraqi army, as an organized structure consisting of large units, exists no longer…” are contrary to fact and, according to analytics, are probably connected with severe pressure put on the military command by American financial groups that desperately needed good news from the US-Iraqi front by the end of the financial week. In fact, the Republican Guards defending Baghdad have not lost even 5% of their numerical strength and military equipment. Most of those losses were due to bombardments and not land combats. The total losses of Iraqi army since the beginning of the war have not exceeded 5-8% of their defensive potential. This means the main battles are still to be seen. "

Regardless of what happens over the coming weeks and months General Mosley was right. The bit about Wall St manipulating the news is like something out of the "Elders of Zion"

You can believe them if you want but even if they do have some weird backchannel access to Russian infromation they are no more credible than the "Britsh Military Sources" who annonced the capture of Umm Qasr.....

Bret

by Danjo Thu Apr 10, 2003 13:30

You may also read in the last dispatch from ramjaz (cover name for the source group) where they say that they have to stop providing info because of pressure from different sources. This may explain the website distancing themselves marginally from the group. However it is obvious that the site thinks that it has provided the best information available and if you read back through the reports, I'm sure that most people will agree that they are immeasurably more accorate than the cack we've been getting from the mainstream.

the site is still worth marking and checking.

by - Thu Apr 10, 2003 00:02

All the “updates” came out from a compact group formed a few years ago in the framework of a special service. The group used to work for the government for a long time but all its members have left the service and now act as an independent analytical group that has kept some capabilities. This gives an answer to the most common question – about the sources of our information.

We participated in the ongoing events on a “non-profit” basis and had no object other than to stand the US-British informational blockade of the war in Iraq.

Our updates were not genuine materials from any of Russian or other special services, but rather an “intellectual product” of the group itself, product of its operative, informational and analytical abilities. But compiling the updates we used materials available from our friends from special information structures. The very form “operativnaya informatsiya” never claimed to be “military information updates” but served as additional data for self-dependent analysis.

by Bret Studly Wed Apr 09, 2003 18:08 sr_mad_science at yahoo dot com

Until yesterday they were describing themselves as "Russian Military Intel" (see link). Now they are offering an explanation that they wrote the "Russian Military Intel" based on information provided by "special information structures".

Either:

1. They really are being fed misinformation by the Russians, in which case the site is no more valid than a statement by the Iraqi's or the Americans on its own.

Or:

2. Their "special information structure" is a vodka bottle or something functionaly equivelent.

Bearing in mind that they have been poved wrong by events on the ground, that they are refusing to attribute their sources to anything other than mysterious "special information structres" and that they have consistantly failed to reveal *anything* about the iraqis that wasn't already reported on CNN why should a rational person take them seriously?

by Sparks Wed Apr 09, 2003 17:55

In other words, the reports they published were written from the same sources as russian military intel, but were not the ones the russian military used.

by Bret Studly Wed Apr 09, 2003 17:50 sr_mad_science at yahoo dot com

From "Event Chronicles", www.iraqwar.ru:

Our updates were not genuine materials from any of Russian or other special services, but rather an “intellectual product” of the group itself, product of its operative, informational and analytical abilities. But compiling the updates we used materials available from our friends from special information structures. The very form “operativnaya informatsiya” never claimed to be “military information updates” but served as additional data for self-dependent analysis.

In other words: They made it all up.....

by FOD - None Wed Apr 09, 2003 17:50

I think its very belivable that this site was based on imainged info but where did you get article they admited it was false?