🚀 go-pugleaf

packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:

>Still not much has been published in the way of pictures
>of the alleged destruction of Sarajevo. There are two possible
>reasons for this:

>1. There is no destruction, after all; to some degree or other,
>   it's a hoax.

>2. There is destruction, but the media are waiting to release
>   pictures to coincide with some event in the offing.

3. It is %&$*(&%$*( dangerous to move around in Yugoslavia...ask Sam
Donaldson's (ex-)Producer...and they were travelling in a Govt. convoy...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558

packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:

>Still not much has been published in the way of pictures
>of the alleged destruction of Sarajevo.

Huh?!?  I don't know what they've been showing on NBC, ABC
and CBS, but on this side of the pond (Germany) there has
been a LOT of coverage with plenty of pictures on ITN, BBC,
ARD, ZDF and others.

Yes - there is plenty of destruction.  It is dangerous just
to cross the street.  Given that the UN backed troops during
the crisis weren't about to bomb the hotels where journalists
were staying in Baghdad, I'd say the journalists in Sarajevo
are in much more danger.

In article <rdavis.713727159@connie.de.convex.com> rdavis@convex.com (Ray Davis) writes:
>packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>
>>Still not much has been published in the way of pictures
>>of the alleged destruction of Sarajevo.
>
>Huh?!?  I don't know what they've been showing on NBC, ABC
>and CBS, but on this side of the pond (Germany) there has
>been a LOT of coverage with plenty of pictures on ITN, BBC,
>ARD, ZDF and others.

No need to get upset.  Not much has been published in the way of
pictures of the alleged Charles Packer.  Until clear evidence of
his actual existence is found, we may safely assume that postings
under this name are simply a plot by USENET to generate more traffic.

   :-)

In article <1992Aug13.183009.2470@src.umd.edu> josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>
>No need to get upset.  Not much has been published in the way of
>pictures of the alleged Charles Packer.  Until clear evidence of
>his actual existence is found, we may safely assume that postings
>under this name are simply a plot by USENET to generate more traffic.

Tonight on Unsolved Mysteries...Is Charles Packer an advanced AI
project, one that could pass a Turing Test?



--
This is not a .signature

In article <12AUG199221570952@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>, packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
> Still not much has been published in the way of pictures
> of the alleged destruction of Sarajevo. There are two possible
> reasons for this:
> 
> 1. There is no destruction, after all; to some degree or other,
>    it's a hoax.
> 
> 2. There is destruction, but the media are waiting to release
>    pictures to coincide with some event in the offing.

	You forgot 3) Your just not looking hard enough, or you are unwilling
to accept evidence you do see.

	I see pics of Sarajevo every night on the news.  They've been in the
paper often.  Today's paper carrier the headline:

	SERBS ROUT THOUSANDS: UN decires eviction of Muslims

> Those familiar with my other postings will know that I've
> favored (1), but it's worth considering (2) in the light of all
> the talk about the expected UN resolution to use force to
> protect their relief effort. The deployment of troops, including
> Americans, to carry out this resolution could be the event for
> which they're waiting. In either case, such news management
> would be easy to bring off because the public, not able to
> imagine who could benefit from the ploy, would never recognize
> that it was happening. 

	Reaching a bit, aren't we?

	There's no reason it even has to be the US that goes in.

> Speaking of American troops, I read that a general told
> Congress yesterday that 
> 
>   "...it may be one of the prerequisites for that 
>   happening successfully [i.e. deployment of troops]
>   is to build a permissive environment [in Bosnia] through
>   political and diplomatic action."
> 
> I can just hear him at his =next= meeting with Congress,
> when it's demanded of him that he explain what he was
> talking about: "Senator, I meant to say that we cannot
> risk the use of FORCE until PEACE comes to the area!

	He meant that he cannot insert troops until a zone of safety appears. 
Inserting troops into a hostile environment gets them killed very quickly.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!

In article <1992Aug13.141339.3437@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes...
>	I see pics of Sarajevo every night on the news.  They've been in the
> ...
>	He meant that he cannot insert troops until a zone of safety appears. 
>Inserting troops into a hostile environment gets them killed very quickly.

There =are= pictures identified as being from Sarajevo, yes, but
with  only a couple of exceptions since April, they don't show
destroyed buildings. They show people running, soldiers with
rifles standing, old ladies in shawls and scarves. 

Anybody who knows when to "insert" troops should have been a 
general himself!