Information Ali and Information Sam...
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...
Turns out Jessica wasn't really "saved" at all acording to the Times online.
In other news: "Coalition" forces shoot 7 protestors dead...
Comments
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?
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.
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...
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.
"THE PIGDOG AMERICANS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON IN THE HOSPITAL AT ALL TIMES!"
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?
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?
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...
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?
Anyway, the point is moot. We will only hear what we want to hear, only beleive what suits our presumptions and biases.
Originally posted by bunge
Can you support that opinion with any facts?
Yes I can.
link
QED
Originally posted by groverat
Since when is the military held to journalistic standards?
Since the Nuremberg trials.
Originally posted by Scott
Yes I can.
That's big of you to admit that you can't.