Information Ali and Information Sam...

Jump to First Reply
newnew
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Well, there are the wild lies of the iraqi information mininster, but there is also the twisted truth of the US propaga... er... state department:



Turns out Jessica wasn't really "saved" at all acording to the Times online.



In other news: "Coalition" forces shoot 7 protestors dead...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I fail to see how that wasn't a rescue. They were going to take her to Baghdad.



    Unless the soldiers were telepathic I fail to see the problem. Those poor yelled-at doctors, what in blue hell do they expect when they've got one of our soldiers, a polite knock on the door and some flowers?







    -



    From your second link:



    the first freaking paragraph:

    US Marines killed at least seven Iraqis as an armed civilian mob tried to storm an allied headquarters, military chiefs said today.



    Protestors?



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 16
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    You're welcome to believe whatever you want. People only hear whatthey want to hear anyway.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 16
    stupider...likeafoxstupider...likeafox Posts: 1,618member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    I fail to see how that wasn't a rescue. They were going to take her to Baghdad.





    Maybe if you READ the article linked you would know that the Ba'ath Party members were going to move her to Baghdad but the doctor treating her moved her to another room and his fellow doctors risked their lives by lying saying that she had died, and that he was not at the hospital.



    He then put her in an ambulance (note:ambulance) that would have delivered her to safety if American soldiers at the checkpoint hadn't fired on it (reminder: ambulance).



    Only after all of this did the US Army arrive to 'rescue' her from people that had saved her life *twice* and risked their own to do so.



    And then the Americans lied about this 'rescue' to make it seem more dramatic.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 16
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by stupider...likeafox

    Maybe if you READ the article linked you would know that the Ba'ath Party members were going to move her to Baghdad but the doctor treating her moved her to another room and his fellow doctors risked their lives by lying saying that she had died, and that he was not at the hospital.



    He then put her in an ambulance (note:ambulance) that would have delivered her to safety if American soldiers at the checkpoint hadn't fired on it (reminder: ambulance).



    Only after all of this did the US Army arrive to 'rescue' her from people that had saved her life *twice* and risked their own to do so.



    And then the Americans lied about this 'rescue' to make it seem more dramatic.





    Sounds like a lot of mind-reading is being asked of the Special Forces...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 16
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Sounds like a lot of mind-reading is being asked of the Special Forces...



    You're not allowed to fire on an Ambulance.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 16
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Absolutely no context given to the shooting at the ambulance event, none at all.



    "THE PIGDOG AMERICANS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON IN THE HOSPITAL AT ALL TIMES!"
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 16
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat





    "THE PIGDOG AMERICANS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON IN THE HOSPITAL AT ALL TIMES!"



    What does an ambulance have to do with what's going on in the hospital?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 16
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    it is not a question of whether it was a rescue operation -- it was (the soldiers who went in believed that they were going into a hostile territory to rescue private lynch)... it is a question of the accuracy of reporting on the side of the american military... obviously, what occured during the course of the operation is not what the american public has been told simple as that... most likely there was no gun fire at the troops and even more likely their lives were less at danger than what they or we have been told...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 16
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    it is a question of the accuracy of reporting on the side of the american military



    Since when is the military held to journalistic standards?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 16
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Since when is the military held to journalistic standards?



    you are an angry one eh? when the military reports something to the press, it has to realize that by time or by luck the story will be or fail to be corroborated... its a liability on their part to lie or to overstate things... they look bad eventually on paper... obviously in this case no one will ever hear the other side of private lynch's story unless she is allowed to speak so...



    no the military can cheat, swindle, lie, and exagerrate all they want, hell, i would if i thought i would look better to 250 million people...

    but nothing is objective now...



    as stated before in this thread people will listen to what they want to listen to and ignore what they want to ignore...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 16
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    The times of London is showing extreme bias and poor journalism in this coverage. It's just more anti-Americanism whipped up from some questionable sources.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 16
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    The times of London is showing extreme bias and poor journalism in this coverage. It's just more anti-Americanism whipped up from some questionable sources.



    Can you support that opinion with any facts?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 16
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I would stop short of accusing the paper of being anti-American, but I would ask why this source carries more weight than the many other sources on this topic? Is it because it fits a certain predisposition, a specific agenda or assumption on the part of the person posting?



    Anyway, the point is moot. We will only hear what we want to hear, only beleive what suits our presumptions and biases.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 16
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Can you support that opinion with any facts?





    Yes I can.



    link



    QED
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 16
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Since when is the military held to journalistic standards?



    Since the Nuremberg trials.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 16
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Yes I can.



    That's big of you to admit that you can't.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.