Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
if you read the reports about this incident--if you do a simple websearch----you will find abundant, clear evidence that journalists outside the american pool "put themselves at risk"--from who?---from the americans. why is that?
clearly the platitude "war is dangerous" as usual says nothing about it.
you could make the argument that information control is part of war--in which case you would have maybe for a moment risen to honesty--in which case there could be an argument about whether this understanding is or is not acceptable--but you didnt.
if you read non-us-filtered sources--which tend to come in languages not english--like italian (my reading is slow and labored but i can manage it) or french or german (of those which i can read)--you get both sides of the story positioned right next to each other.
reading these, it because pretty clear which version is closer to what happened.
hint: it is not the american.
proof: read for yourself the accounts. it is pretty straightforward. it does not take a rocket scientist to sort this out. all you have to do is put in a little effort. (sort out at least insofar as what is available in the press from various places is concerned)
that is where i am coming from on this.
the comment "what were you there" is preposterous. par for the course no less.
|
And the sources you cited weren't there either.
Poo-poo it all you want roach, but unless the account is firsthand, it has to be taken with a grain of salt--whether we are referring to the soldiers accounts or the reporter's.
However, these sources match what you want to have happened, so, of course it works for you and you will sing the praises of the unbiased and completely above reproach French and German presses who happen to be the only beacons of truth we have in this world.
I say that none of the non-firsthand accounts are accurate because you have to take the source into account.
Soldiers protect their own, it is how they survive, so, of course, their version is going to put them in good light.
The reporter is obviously anti-war and anti-American (which is fine, she can be however she wants to be), but I hardly think she is going to say anything that doesn't make her look like a "targeted victim" of the evil empire and all of the Bush cronies.
The truth lies somewhere in between.
But, that wouldn't work for you now would it?