This report from Robert Fisk at Baghdad International Airport: Who does one believe? It sure highlights the "first casualty if war is the truth" axiom:
You couldn't have found a more bias anti-american "reporter".
How so? I've never heard of the guy, or if I have, I don't remember him. What has he done before that would lead us to believe he's full of crap? I don't doubt that he is, I'm just curious.
This report from Robert Fisk at Baghdad International Airport: Who does one believe? It sure highlights the "first casualty if war is the truth" axiom:
Yeah, but look at the times he posted his report. I think at that time they actually hadnt done the attack yet, because I remember reports about Iraq taking the press out for a look HOURS before they started to attack the airport.. Iraq was saying there was no one at the airport, and at the time they were right. (of course, they are still saying that now, but when they took the reporters out, that was all over the news yesterday..(again take into account time differences)
now, as far as them saying that they arent close to the airport, or anywhere else(like us not controlling the port) well. you be the judge...
Fisk spoke at Medill (NUs Journalism School and considered by many to be the world's best: see illinois execution moratorium) last year and it was the biggest deal on at medill that I have ever seen. What I found out in the process is that his is by far one of the world's most highly respected journalists.
As such, if he says it, 99.999999% chance that what he is saying is what he experienced.
Secondly, Stratfor has been reporting that only very small number of troops have been heading in that direction, while the vast bulk has been securing already established positions.
As for time:
Quote:
0820 GMT - U.S. military sources on April 4 said that coalition forces are in "complete control" of Saddam International Airport just outside Baghdad. However, journalists embedded with U.S. units at the airport report that it is easily as large as London's Heathrow Airport, with numerous buildings that will take considerable time to search and clear of any Iraqi fighters that may still be hiding. U.S. troops also found a network of tunnels beneath the airport, apparently stretching back to the Tigris River. They also seized Iraqi military equipment, including 31 pieces of anti-aircraft artillery, three armored troop carriers and 23 other trucks.
from stratfor
Thus, he was there after their claim of controlling the airport, but there are other embedded journalists that have apparently reported from there.
But I am not on the ground and therefore do not know what is really going on. And neither are you. But some troops aparently are in the airport. Of course, there is probably not a large number, which might be why Fisk missed them. For those that saw the Umm Qsar operation on live TV a couple of weeks ago, we can see that it could be possible to miss US tanks if there are not that many and they are out of sight. Many reports say the airport is very large with lots of buildings.
Comments
Originally posted by sammi jo
This report from Robert Fisk at Baghdad International Airport: Who does one believe? It sure highlights the "first casualty if war is the truth" axiom:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...ction=dialogue
You couldn't have found a more bias anti-american "reporter".
either way, someone is telling fibs
Originally posted by Scott
You couldn't have found a more bias anti-american "reporter".
How so? I've never heard of the guy, or if I have, I don't remember him. What has he done before that would lead us to believe he's full of crap? I don't doubt that he is, I'm just curious.
Originally posted by sammi jo
This report from Robert Fisk at Baghdad International Airport: Who does one believe? It sure highlights the "first casualty if war is the truth" axiom:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...ction=dialogue
Yeah, but look at the times he posted his report. I think at that time they actually hadnt done the attack yet, because I remember reports about Iraq taking the press out for a look HOURS before they started to attack the airport.. Iraq was saying there was no one at the airport, and at the time they were right. (of course, they are still saying that now, but when they took the reporters out, that was all over the news yesterday..(again take into account time differences)
now, as far as them saying that they arent close to the airport, or anywhere else(like us not controlling the port) well. you be the judge...
As such, if he says it, 99.999999% chance that what he is saying is what he experienced.
Secondly, Stratfor has been reporting that only very small number of troops have been heading in that direction, while the vast bulk has been securing already established positions.
As for time:
0820 GMT - U.S. military sources on April 4 said that coalition forces are in "complete control" of Saddam International Airport just outside Baghdad. However, journalists embedded with U.S. units at the airport report that it is easily as large as London's Heathrow Airport, with numerous buildings that will take considerable time to search and clear of any Iraqi fighters that may still be hiding. U.S. troops also found a network of tunnels beneath the airport, apparently stretching back to the Tigris River. They also seized Iraqi military equipment, including 31 pieces of anti-aircraft artillery, three armored troop carriers and 23 other trucks.
from stratfor
Thus, he was there after their claim of controlling the airport, but there are other embedded journalists that have apparently reported from there.
But I am not on the ground and therefore do not know what is really going on. And neither are you. But some troops aparently are in the airport. Of course, there is probably not a large number, which might be why Fisk missed them. For those that saw the Umm Qsar operation on live TV a couple of weeks ago, we can see that it could be possible to miss US tanks if there are not that many and they are out of sight. Many reports say the airport is very large with lots of buildings.
Originally posted by Scott
You couldn't have found a more bias anti-american "reporter".
OH MY GOD WILL YOU EVER GIVE IT A REST!
I'm beginning to become anti-American on the simple principle that anything that winds you up is probably worthwhile.
Jaysus.
Robert Fisk is an excellent journalist. He's a Middle Eastern specialist who files for the Independent newspaper in the UK.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
OH MY GOD WILL YOU EVER GIVE IT A REST!
I'm beginning to become anti-American on the simple principle that anything that winds you up is probably worthwhile.
Jaysus.
Robert Fisk is an excellent journalist. He's a Middle Eastern specialist who files for the Independent newspaper in the UK.
Lately Fisk has been the whipping boy of most of the right-wing bloggers.
And speaking of the unpatriotic charges of anti-Americanism, take a look at this nice little op-ed piece:
http://www.citypaper.com/2003-03-26/animal.html
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Scott
You couldn't have found a more bias anti-american "reporter".
I couldn't agree with you more. For objective cheerleading, er, I mean news, you'd better tune into Fox.
Originally posted by Chinney
I couldn't agree with you more. For objective cheerleading, er, I mean news, you'd better tune into Fox.
Shhh!!! They think it's fair and objective reporting.
Cheers
Scott