the dissident frogman

20 years and 6 months ago

Big Surprise ♠ Grosse Surprise

the dissident frogman

Necrothreading much?

Article content

Article copy

The big surprise is not to find French missiles dated 2003 in Iraq.

The big surprise is not to see the French government running in circle and bellowing "we didn't do it because we don't do it anymore and even if we would, we wouldn't anyway!"

The big surprise is not to see some of the French people accusing the Polish and the US government of "making up" evidence while trusting Jacques ChIraq like they actually trusted Saddam's word.

The big surprise is... Oh.

There's not big surprise. I'm the dissident frogman, not a darn friggin' Santa Claus.
UPDATE:
Via Instapundit: looks like the big surprise was that the Poles only read one side of the missiles.
How wonderful is the world of information. Those missiles were destroyed Wednesday. The story comes out this morning. It's already contradicted this evening.

Good thing that we're among rational people here.

Otherwise, we would certainly suspect some shady theories.
UPDATE II:
Via a sarcastic commenter on this post, the same news on the French version of Yahoo. Same story (more or less) and an interesting point:
"It's a biased story because on the pictures, only one side of the missiles is shown, on which is displayed GKN 2003 while the manufacturing year is on the other side", (Parisian sources) insisted.
Well, I doubt the Poles would be stupid enough to make up a story that could be so easily debunked by just saying "read on the other side, dummy", so I guess I can trust they've been genuinely mistaking. This time.

The funny thing is that nobody seems to care - or be able - to tell us what was written exactly... On the other side.

Article copy (alternate language)

La grosse surprise n'est pas de trouver des missiles français datés 2003 en Irak.

La grosse surprise n'est pas de voir le gouvernement français tourner en rond en beuglant "c'est pas nous qu'on l'a fait à cause qu'on le fait plus et que même si on le faisait on le ferait pu, n'importe comment!"

La grosse surprise n'est pas de voir une partie des français accuser les gouvernements polonais et américains de "fabriquer" les preuves, tout en accordant aux déclarations de Jacques Chirac la même confiance qu'à celles de Saddam.

La grosse surprise est... Oh.

Y'a pas de grosse surprise. Je suis le dissident frogman, pas un putain de Père Noël.
MISE A JOUR :
Via Instapundit: il semble que la grosse surprise soit que les Polonais n'ont lu qu'un côté des missiles.
Est-il merveilleux, le monde de l'information. Les missiles ont été détruits mercredi. L'histoire sort ce matin. Elle est déjà contredite ce soir.

C'est une bonne chose que nous soyons entre gens rationnels ici.

Sinon, nous pourrions certainement soupçonner quelques théories suspectes.
MISE A JOUR II :
Via un commentateur sarcastique sur ce post, la même news sur la version française de Yahoo. Même histoire (plus ou moins) et un point intéressant :
"C'est une affaire orientée parce que sur les photos, on ne montre qu'un côté des missiles sur lequel figure GKN 2003 alors que l'année de fabrication est de l'autre côté", a-t-on insisté.
Bigre, je doute que les polonais soient stupides au point de fabriquer une vessie qui puisse être dégonflée aussi facilement qu'en disant "lis de l'autre côté, crétin", je pense donc pouvoir leur faire confiance et considérer qu'ils se sont sincèrement trompés. Cette fois.

Le truc marrant, c'est que personne ne semble soucieux - ou capable - de nous dire ce qui était écrit... De l'autre côté.

Other

About

the dissident frogman's avatar
the dissident frogman

I own, built and run this place. In a previous life I was not French but sadly, I died.

Contact

To reveal my email address, find the 1st  number in the code and enter it in the challenge field below.

80096

The Wise knows that Cities are but demonic Soul-tearing pits that shall not be entered.

More options

Comments

Commenting as

You're presumed to have read and abide by the comments policy, but here's the gist of it:

Silly or serious, you are responsible for what you write. I slay trolls. Thank you for your comment.

Comment author avatar
Max. 300 characters
An email address is required.
It is never published or shared.

As in "valid" email address...

Once posted, your comment can't be edited. Feel free to (ab)use the Preview!

The Wise knows that Cities are but demonic Soul-tearing pits that shall not be entered.

Comments thread (9)

766 - fred

Comment author avatar
Dear Frogman , is not a surprise to discovered the french weapons in Irak , you know the market parts of the french weapons sales to Irak , hum. 17% just behind the USSR. When I think that Chirak is best friend of Saddam. Very Little ........... Please my god Help us..........( and save the queen )

769 - JFM

Comment author avatar
I have seen some claims that this was the old Roland 2 missile and not the new Roland 3. The same source stated that CKN-2003 was an Iraki inspection plate. Could be but in that case the plate is not Iraki: it would use Arabic script instead of Latin.

770 - the dissident frogman

Comment author avatar
  • the dissident frogman France

Melodie aka hint hint: Judging by your IP you're definitely not who you think I'm hinting at. JFM: So obvious that it didn't strike me before. Well seen! So even if this is the date when the missiles were last checked, and considering that the "industrial sources in Paris" claimed they were checked by an Iraki company, the question is indeed: why would they use a Latin script? Surely there's a good reason to explain that. Or a big surprise of some sort.
Time to take sides

771 - Name

Comment author avatar
it's perhaps because it's easier to write on a plate using latin script than arabic alphabet : http://i-cias.com/babel/arabic/06.htm Extract : 22 of the 28 Arabic letters have 4 variants: 1. Standing alone. 2. As the first letter in a word. 3. Inside the word, between two other letters. 4. As the last letter in a word, joining to the letter in front. Btw and IP can be hidden or changed see : http://www.multiproxy.org/ without a lot of technical knowledge ... So is it my real IP of not ?

772 - the dissident frogman

Comment author avatar
  • the dissident frogman France

["it's perhaps because it's easier to write on a plate using latin script than arabic alphabet"] So you're telling us that nobody, nowhere in the Arab world is using the Arabic alphabet, either painted, transfered, traced or even handwritten on "plates" (in the largest meaning of the world) ? Is that what you mean? And more important, should I stop laughing and listen to anything else? ["So is it my real IP of not ?"] Who gives a f**? The person I'm hinting at has no special reason to hide his IP from me anyway. See what I mean?
Time to take sides

773 - Name

Comment author avatar
Wow ! Impressive ,I just offer a little help to point flaw in you logic and you jump on me ? Tss tss ... And no it's not my real IP it's not a fake either (btw it would be interresting to know what is a real IP when you are in a corporate network ...)

774 - the dissident frogman

Comment author avatar
  • the dissident frogman France

This is the Pond of the Great Frog of War, not [url=http://www.casimirland.com]http://www.casimirland.com[/url]. What were you expecting? Watch out, it bites. I still don't see the supposed flaw though. That's if you're still serious about Arabic not being suitable for printing, of course...
Time to take sides