Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Workshop_Willy
The article, purportedly a work of journalism, glaringly omits to address the claims of the US military in regard to the convoy's speed and failure to respond to visual signals to slow down and stop. I ask you Icon, would that not be one of the first things an honest journalist would discover and print considering that this person was an eyewitness? That omission is an undercurrent. To me, that denotes a bias in favor of the "conspiracy" theory being drummed up around the whole thing.
|
It could, I agree. I could also point out this is the first article that does not mention the convoy's speed. Perhaps, and I'm just speculating as I sit on my ass over 1000 kms away, perhaps they were aware of the arrival of the convoy.
"The Americans and Italians knew about (her) car coming," Pier Scolari said on leaving Rome's Celio military hospital where Sgrena is to undergo surgery following her return home.
"They were 700 meters (yards) from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints."
If this is in fact the case, the other accounts are rendered moot, are they not? This was also a first hand perspective of someone who was there, who can explain US accounts?
Was the tank that killed 3 (or was it 4) reporters in Bagdad an error as well?
The 4 Canadian Soldiers bombed while performing training exercises an accident?
I'd like to say this is not a conspiracy, but what exactly is this trend? Inneptitude? (SP?) reklessness? (SP?)