Chris, why so quick to second-guess and condemn the U.S. military...who are right THERE getting shot at on the front lines despite what the Iraqi Minister of Spinformation keeps saying? I heard one military commentator this week saying that given a choice between hearsay/bystander perception and the soldier in the foxhole, he's gonna believe the soldier in the foxhole. Targeting a news office seems a pretty namby-pamby target (except for SG's stated justification) in the grand scheme. (cont'd) -- The Philadelphia Talk Radio Politics and Opinion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:32:21 04/10/03 Thu
Author: Spock
Author Host/IP: user-vc8fm1s.biz.mindspring.com / 216.135.216.60
Subject: Chris, why so quick to second-guess and condemn the U.S. military...who are right THERE getting shot at on the front lines despite what the Iraqi Minister of Spinformation keeps saying? I heard one military commentator this week saying that given a choice between hearsay/bystander perception and the soldier in the foxhole, he's gonna believe the soldier in the foxhole. Targeting a news office seems a pretty namby-pamby target (except for SG's stated justification) in the grand scheme. (cont'd)
In reply to: Chris Henry 's message, "However, does this explain why our forces have twice bombed the Al Jazeera offices? Kabul, November 2001, and Baghdad, April 2003. Or the attack on the journalists' hotel in Baghdad yesterday? It's a bit naive to say "we were returning fire" when there are dozens of professional journalists from all countries and persuasions saying the opposite." on 07:09:37 04/09/03 Wed

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> I'd say if the Iraqi regime has adopted a strategy of setting up snipers where return fire endangers civilians, it's par for the course. BTW, there is no such thing as a "safe" war, and its foolish to think no one outside the military will get hurt. Doesn't mean it's intentional. If you hit a rabbit while driving, does that mean you meant to? -- Spock, 11:35:08 04/10/03 Thu (user-vc8fm1s.biz.mindspring.com/216.135.216.60)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> We all accept that mistakes happen. What I personally don't like are official lies and cover-ups, especially when time has elapsed and the true facts that can be determined. In this case, large numbers of reporters were able to confirm the truth, and hence the lies of our own spokesmen. If they lie about this, how do we know when they tell the truth? -- Chris Henry, 02:45:45 04/13/03 Sun (pc-80-194-21-80-bf.blueyonder.co.uk/80.194.21.80)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Large numbers of reporters lied to us about what Clinton and the Dmoicrats were doing for 8 years and what a great statesman Fidel Castro and Arafat are and about that false story with nerve gas in Vietnam. Why should we believe reporters who started out hostile before anything happened any more than anyone else? Reporters lie and distort constantly. Few report neutrally. Many have been caught in outright lies as well as plagiarism. -- SG, 11:24:28 04/13/03 Sun (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]