Read: “We were either lying or stupid”

The NYT has broken a land-speed record in publishing a correction to their misidentification of a the remains of a missile that struck a Pakistani house:

Correction: A picture caption on Saturday with an article about a U.S. airstrike on a village in Pakistan misidentified an unexploded ordinance. It was not the remains of a missile fired at a house.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I found the correction via a commenter at RightWinged. Also among the commenters is one tbizzle, who also commented on my earlier post. I can tell that tbizzle put a lot of thought into his comment on RightWinged, as it’s word for word identical to the one posted on MO:

That round in the photo is a 203mm round fired out of the M110A2 track mounted artillery gun.

see here: http://www.pofwah.com.pk/products/images/LARGE/203mmhowhem106.jpg

You can clearly match up the lettering from the NY Times photo to this photo. Pakistan has these artillery guns available and they have a range of over 25 miles so it’s not inconcievable that there was additional fire called in after the air strike by ground teams. The shell does not look old to me. If you look at the unfired photo round you can see the banding below the yellow markings. In the NY Times photo you can see the unbanded round with the rifling marks shown. Hope this helps you out. I don’t really think this was some big liberal conspiracy

Posted by: tbizzle | January 16, 2006 05:16 PM

Now, he links to a pic of a 203mm shell. Which lettering you can “clearly match up” is beyond me, unless the simple existence of lettering in the NYT photo means it’s the same thing. It doesn’t. And the M106 HE round pictured at the link weighs 200 pounds. Still, could be. Also, it’s pretty hard to tell, but it appears that the shell might be fused. That makes this guys posing with it nuts, doesn’t it? And the guys that manhandled it into position for the photo shoot?

After spending a fair amount of time of looking at pics and specs, I cannot really tell whether this is a 203mm or a 155mm round. If I were a betting man, I guess I’d have to go with 155mm.

In any event, what are the odds that someone would follow up a laser-guided air strike via UAV with unguided 203mm artillery fire? A lot of folks seem to be saying things like “you’d never use a Hellfire missile on a house…there’s something fishy going on here”. That’s pretty dumb, and even if it wasn’t, why haven’t the Hellfire skeptics spoken up before this? It’s not like this is the first time we’ve used a Hellfire fired by a Predator.

For the record, I don’t know that anyone was calling this a “liberal conspiracy”. More like “liberal cluelessness”.

Comments

  1. So what the hell is this a picture of? (I’m asking the NYT). Where did this photo come from? Thanks for such a great clarification.

  2. I do call it a conspirancy. If you pose an UXO, an old man and a young boy and claim that its the remains of a missile strike on a house, the same missile strike directed at Aiman al-zawahiri, knowing that it is not, how is it less of a conspirancy than if the reporter would have lit a cross on fire in the front yard of a black civil rights activist to prove racism in America? It is still a composed photo of a lie. I see this all the time in the foreign press. They will claim they have the proof of torture in secret CIA prisions in Europe and show an old photo of camp x-ray at GITMO. The casual nincompoop believes the photo without questioning the source.

  3. Displaying the 152mm projo was propaganda. My money now is on the fact that it was not the only artifact of war found there. I bet there are busted AK parts, RPG launchers and munitions. I bet this dud was stored there for future use as an IED. The NYT is blinded by their preconceived notions that we are bad. This fits their template. It’s the ’emotional truth’ .. meaning it is what should have happened. Coulter points out that conservatives begin with the premise that we are a virtuous country. Liberals believe the opposite. She is right.

  4. The NYT’s is a LLL rag that is barely usefull to wipe my a*s with. I kinda think this is more of a case of the NYT’s using coorespondents cough terrorists colaboraters with thier own agenda’s and the people back at the NYT to stupid about military stuff to know the difference. It wouldnt suprise me if this even turns out to be a photo from some place other than the actual village hit.

  5. They most likely used a Hellfire II with a thermobaric warhead. The artillery shell most likley has nothing to do with attack. Though in that part of the world, artillery shells are everywhere.