Nice try, but a British Journalist got the serial number from the remains of the missile:

"This is a hospital without computers, with only It can be easily verified and checked by the Americans - if they choose to do so. It reads: 30003-704ASB 7492. The letter "B" is scratched and could be an "H". This is believed to be the serial number. It is followed by a further code which arms manufacturers usually refer to as the weapon's "Lot" number. It reads: MFR 96214 09.

So? It has a serial number? Big fat hairy deal.

Please, Harmonia, translate that number--and provide sources. Certainly somewhere you find out it translates into Fabriqu� en France or Gebildet in Deutschland.

Personally, I think you made that up.

https://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=392161

Actually, the latest analysis I have seen of the "serial number" data suggest that it is from a HARM missle. This is an anti-radiation missle, primarily used to take out radar emitters. Once it is fired, it will track the radar back to the source OR, continue to the point it last saw if the radar is abruptly turned off. The crater is entirely inconsistent with a cruise missile, but apparently would be consistent with what you would expect to see from a HARM.

Hiding a mobile radar unit in a marketplace? Why, Saddam would never do that - that's like using human shields.

With the amount of ordinance that's fallen on Baghdad in the last few days, I bet you can find pieces with serial numbers on them scattered all over the place - so how do we know this piece came from the market place?

I take it harm hasn't heard of the report on French and arab news that the rumors making the rounds in Bagdad is that Saddam did it on purpose. His own people free of the "minders" are convinced Saddam is responsible.

I notice that you didn't mention the journalists name, allow me, Robert Fisk. The raging propagandist has "found" evidence, no possiblity at all that a missile fragment could have been given to him by the Ministry of Information is there. The alternate theory, supported by some evidence is that Iraqi SAM's having missed their targets burned out and fell back into the city. The blast is also consistent with a frag warhead on a SAM.

The fact is that we don't know what happened, there are two competing theories. The one Neal talked about, and the second one I mentioned, both are plausible. Both however put the blame on Huessein, feel better harm?

Robert Fisk, Christ, why not qoute directly from the Iraqi Propaganda Ministry.

Got a source on any of that?

Fisk a propagandist, now that is funny

Try Tim Blair's blog, and then Instapundit. I don't bother recording every address of everything I read, do your own research.

I take it you haven't heard of the term Fisking? He's a joke over here harm, nobody serious believes him, on anything. Sorry you think he's accurate, but it sheds some light on why you believe some of the stuff you do. He and the Independant have all the credibilty of Pravda during Stalin's day.

You do know that Brit tabloids are generally laughed at outside Britain, don't you?

Yep, defense of Fisk immediately tells you the worldview you are up against.

Inflexable
Deluded
Hatred
Biased

Follow up (BTW the Independent is not a tabloid)

https://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=393066

So if you read Robert Fisk you are hate filled and deluded?

Doesnt take much for you to leap to conclusions!

So, one of these articles is presented to imply that since Chirac is so interested in Iraqi oil that Bush just couldn't be as well?
How does pointing out Chirac's greed exxonorate Bush's?

Sylvain,

I never said one exonerated the other, if it exists. The point is that the French have been EXTREMELY disingeuous in their attempts to stop the war.

Nice use of exxonerate, if it was intentional, BTW.

Welcome back Sylvain, I see you brought your Bush hammer with you. Even so, glad you could make it.